Lord Stratford

Anthony Louis Banks, Esquire, having been created Baron Stratford, of Stratford in the London Borough of Newham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hoyle and the Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Lyell of Markyate

The Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Walter Lyell, Knight, QC, having been created Baron Lyell of Markyate, of Markyate in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Howe of Aberavon and the Lord Mayhew of Twysden.
	The Lord Bishop of Leicester—took the Oath.

Disaster Management

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the outcome of the United Nations conference on natural disasters held in Kobe in January, they will now support a national platform in the United Kingdom for co-ordinating policy, practical action and research in this field.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government take an integrated approach to emergency management and have established a framework for civil protection that covers environmental emergencies and those caused by other threats and hazards. This framework includes structures at local, regional and national levels to co-ordinate policy and action.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather cautious reply. Since Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the importance of co-ordinating research operations and information in connection with natural disasters, both in the UK and world-wide, will they follow other EU countries in recognising an appropriate UK body for that co-ordination in time for the meeting on dealing with disasters, to be held in London in December, under the UK's EU presidency?
	Do the Government agree with the G8 and G5 legislators' meeting yesterday in London about the importance of improving warnings for all kinds of natural disasters, particularly in relation to climate change, as Admiral Fitzroy first demonstrated so successfully in the 1850s, which is being celebrated tomorrow on the bicentenary of his birth in 1805?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that historical footnote. I thank him for his question. We recognise the importance of effective national structures, which is why we have our particular approach. At a time when climate change is on the agenda and is very much a political concern, the noble Lord will no doubt be delighted to know that the Government are sponsoring part of the important conference to which he referred and that they will be supplying several key speakers.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the potential effects of asteroid impact are included under the definition of "natural disasters"? This is a very real threat, unlikely though it may be, and I would hate to see it excluded from the list of natural disasters read out by the Minister. Organisations like "Spaceguard" use it as an example for children to learn astrophysics, and to get encouragement from science.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks an interesting question. Curiously enough, one of my children was asking me a similar question recently, and I did not have an answer for them. It would probably be better if I write to the noble Lord, but I thank him for raising an important point.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following the disastrous earthquake on 26 December that produced a tsunami, the line there was weakened? That was followed by another earthquake on 26 March. Is he aware that further earthquakes are expected in that region, and is he happy that preparations for such an event are well advanced?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, an early warning system has been agreed by international bodies. We are well aware of the potential threat, which will be at the forefront of our thinking on this issue.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the immediate disaster threatening this country is probably not being hit by an asteroid but drought—certainly in southern England. Does the Minister agree that the longer-term worry is that 5 million people in the United Kingdom live in highly flood-prone areas? This requires not merely short-term disaster reaction, but long-term planning of a positive kind, in order to prevent a disaster in the future. Will he describe to us which entity, body or department is really taking this forward?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would probably be the Environment Agency. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to these concerns. The issue of drought and, ironically, flooding—the other end of the spectrum—have to be at the forefront of our thinking. Indeed, that is why we have careful monitoring arrangements in place.

EU Budget

Lord Campbell of Alloway: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps are now to be taken on future financing of the European Union to sustain a viable value for the euro which favours the economy and employment, and to control proportionate re-allocation of budget resources.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, as the Prime Minister said in his Statement to the House of Commons on 20 June, the UK believes that there needs to be a responsible and prudent approach to EU spending at a time when national budgets across Europe are under strain. There also needs to be a debate on the structure of the European Union budget to respond to the challenges of globalisation, which the UK plans to take forward under its presidency.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generalised response. I ask him, however, whether the steps to be taken to revive a stagnant economy and to stabilise the euro are not first of all to reform the ECB, as advised by your Lordships' Select Committee; to reduce the interest rate to 1 per cent; to introduce enforceable limits to budgetary expenditure; and to introduce parliamentary control of commission regulations and abolish the acquis communitaire?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, that is a long list. We should recognise that the European Central Bank is a relatively new institution. It will need time to develop and the financial markets will need time to respond to its approach. However, it is important that the ECB is independent. That is how it is set up and therefore it is not for individual governments to instruct it or to interfere with its judgments. Indeed, an important part of the stability that we are trying to create is that the bank is independent and is seen as being so.
	On interest rate policy, it is a matter for the ECB and not for individual member states. On enforceable limits on budgets, one of the reasons why the UK could not sign up to the current financial perspective is that there was not sufficient agreement on capping the budget, which is an important plank of the Government's policy.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the new budget does not start until 2007. What percentage of our GDP will our rebate be? Is it the Government's policy that, subject to the common agricultural policy being phased out over the period of the new budget, we would be willing to phase out our rebate?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, on the CAP, the Government's position is clear; that we need to see a fundamental revamping of the budget. Indeed, if it were reduced, as a matter of arithmetic rather than negotiation, the abatement would decline.
	On the current value of the abatement as a percentage of GDP, I do not have that figure but it must be less than 1 per cent. I will write to the noble Lord on that.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, the Question includes some complex business but I return to the common agricultural policy. Has the Prime Minister definitely dropped the startling suggestion to abolish the CAP—"to get rid of it", in his immortal phrase last week; or will he revive the idea of keeping some part of the CAP, pending getting rid of it eventually, when he responds to President Bush's even more startling suggestion?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Prime Minister has consistently said that the budget review is part of a wider debate about EU response to globalisation challenges. It is not expected to end the CAP now or to renegotiate it overnight. Any change must take account of the legitimate needs of farming communities and happen over time. However, there needs to be a clear process for the reform of the CAP which we would want to see in place during the course of the upcoming financial perspective.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell your Lordships of any currency union in history which has survived without a federal budget and a government to run it? If the proposed constitution is not revived and enacted, what hope can there be for the survival of the euro, let alone for the niceties contained in the Question?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a lesson on history. In relation to current monetary union, we do not take the position that it depends on a single political structure and a single government for Europe. That is why there is in place the ECB and an independent approach to monetary policy. It is also why the stability and growth pact, notwithstanding recent changes, is in place to ensure that there is fiscal responsibility. Those two key planks enable monetary union to be sustained without a single government.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord have another attempt to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes? Last week he put the same question to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who could not answer it. When the Prime Minister says that he wants to get rid of the CAP, are we to assume that the Prime Minister wants to get rid of the CAP or not?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thought that I had dealt with that matter in answering the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, but I will try again. The Government's position is that we do not expect the CAP to be abrogated overnight, but there needs to be an approach for reform of the CAP, which has to be a process of negotiation with our partners taking account of farming interests. We need to see progress. That is a clear position.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Government inform the House, and indeed the farming community, how long they propose to take in abolishing the CAP?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to put words into my mouth. We are talking about reform and renegotiation of the CAP. The objective is to see any redirected European budget in place during the course of the current financial perspective, so at least the latter half of the perspective can have a budget that is fit for purpose and fit for the 21st century.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in view of the constant questions that have been asked regarding the Prime Minister's Statement, will my noble friend confirm that what the Prime Minister meant was that we will get rid of the common agricultural policy in its present form?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I would urge all noble Lords to listen to and read what the Prime Minister said. It is very clear.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, interpreting the Prime Minister's words on many subjects is an art form and we are not going to reach clear conclusions now. I return to the original Question rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He mentioned the budgetary underpinnings of the euro—which was also raised by my noble friend Lord Pearson—and the future of the stability and growth pact.
	Does the Minister recall the Treasury producing a paper a year ago saying that the stability and growth pact had to be strong and effective and that it was a step forward in recognising the importance of long-term budgetary discipline? Now it has become weak and ineffective and a meaningless voluntary affair. So what does the Treasury say now? Have we achieved these goals, and if not, should we be putting forward some firm and clear reforms?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the position on the stability and growth pact is that we support a prudent interpretation of that pact but recognise that it needs to be flexible to deal with economic cycles in member states and to take account of debt levels and the need for public investment in member states. To suggest, as some do, that somehow it has all fallen apart is simply not right.
	A number of member states are going through some stages of the excess deficit proposals. That shows that the 3 per cent and 60 per cent limits are still in place, but they need to be interpreted with flexibility to take account of economic circumstances in particular member states.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how flexible is flexible? Does it mean plus or minus 100 per cent for the 3 per cent and the 60 per cent? It looks as though we are allowing those countries that signed up to an agreement to be within two rigid parameters to have a huge amount of flexibility.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is important that whatever flexibility there is is limited. I could happily go through a list of member states that are subject to processes at the moment to indicate where they are and where it is proposed that they will get to. The excess deficit proposals for Germany and France are currently in abeyance following the Council's conclusions of November 2003, but that is because the judgment in their case was that the actions they have taken are broadly consistent with the correction of the excess deficit by 2005, so these things, as ever, need to be seen in context.

Railways: Franchises

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the current process of letting railway passenger franchises at frequent intervals is the best method of producing the highest standards of service.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have the flexibility to let train operating franchises of different lengths. A balance needs to be struck between franchise periods that are long enough to encourage investment by train operators and short enough so that the market is regularly tested by competition and costs to the taxpayer are kept down.
	The White Paper The Future of Rail published in July 2004 announced a number of changes to rail franchising that will improve standards of service across the industry.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I say that it might easily have been given by a Minister in the Conservative government when the railways were privatised, when the Labour Party was vociferous in its criticism of the short-term management styles that are found with franchising, where people do not invest money in training or in improvements that passengers need. Why do the Government not go in for a system of franchising that really encourages investment, where franchisees put a lot of their own money into the facilities that people want, which means longer timescales?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, because we are not dissatisfied with the developing situation. The noble Lord will be all too well aware of the recent franchise negotiated by GNER, which seems good for the company—it has won its bid—but also good for the taxpayer because returns are coming to the taxpayer. There is also a guarantee that the service will continue with—in fact, improve on—the very good standards of recent years. So I do not share the noble Lord's rather gloomy prognostication about the nature of the franchises. We have built in additional criteria to which the franchisees are subject and we are confident that we will improve the railway.

Lord Snape: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if he travels to Birmingham, he will see some trains run by companies with a 20-year franchise, some with a 10-year franchise, some with a five-year franchise, some with a three-year franchise and one with an 18-month extension on its franchise—which I suppose meets all the eventualities outlined in his Answer? Will he accept that that is no way to run a railway, although it may well benefit livery designers and paint manufacturers? Cannot we find a proper franchise model and stick to it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is reflecting, with his well-known accuracy on railway matters, the position that has obtained for the past 10 years, which has produced those accumulating factors in railways in the centre of England. We are in the process of changing that. He will recognise that the new franchises have a more consistent length. Current lengths of franchises are over 11 years. He is reflecting on the accumulation of the past, not looking confidently to a bright new future.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree with the Minister that we need the maximum possible investment in rail. From his answers, I am not sure that he has shown that will be done to maximum effect. Surely, franchises need to be slightly more flexible. For example, at the end of the franchise, there is not much incentive for investment in stations, and so on. If there were more flexibility in the transfer of franchises and more compensation, that might happen. It does not seem that Network Rail is consulted in any way. I should like the Minister to answer about real investment in railways.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord certainly made a substantial point when he referred to Network Rail. It is important that it is part of the process. We are realigning the franchises to be closer to the regional structure of Network Rail. That is crucial. We cannot improve train services unless the franchisees are guaranteed proper access to the track, which Network Rail needs to guarantee. We all know the parlous state of our track since the Hatfield accident.
	However, things are improving significantly. Punctuality, which is still the absolute prerequisite when passengers evaluate train services, is improving. It is not reaching across the country the standards that we want, but there is clear improvement.
	I bear in mind what the noble Lord says about the end of franchise. It is obvious that when people come to the end of their tenure, the danger is that standards may decline. But I again offer the instance of GNER. Not only did its standards not decline but, against intense competition, it won a renewal of the contract. That is the model that we expect for the future.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the success of the GNER franchise—I commend the Government on what they have achieved—was not matched on the west coast with Virgin Cross Country and Virgin West Coast? Their franchises have been on a cost-plus basis for three, four or even five years. Can my noble friend tell us when that matter will be resolved, so that those important routes are turned into proper franchises with management incentives to operate reliably?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw the contrast but the House will be aware of the fact that the problem with regard to the west coast franchise did relate crucially to the great problems with the renewal of the busiest track in Europe. It is the most intensively used track in Europe and we have now reached the final stages of its completion.
	The completion of the track will guarantee that the franchise operators will have access to the track on proper terms. It will enable us to move out of the temporary situation that we had with regard to certain aspects of the franchise on the West Coast Main Line which will be translated into a proper franchise of proper duration with a guarantee of improvement in service.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Chiltern franchise has been let for 20 years. The operator has committed himself to substantial improvement to that railway and has funded it himself. Why is such scope for railway development not being allowed to other franchisees?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are certain unique features with regard to the Chiltern franchise. It is a much more self-contained system than many other franchises. The noble Earl is right—the length of the franchise is 26 years and that is not a model that we will adopt right across the country. Merseyside Rail is one other franchise which is almost as long as that. It is a reflection of a much more closely integrated system in which it is far easier for the operator to be able to identify his running costs and the necessary investment and the returns on them.
	Other franchises are a good deal more complex. It is necessary that, on behalf of the taxpayer, we retain some crucial rights to intervene after about 10 years in order to ensure that the travelling public get good value and also that where the taxpayer has invested, his interests are also safeguarded.

Statutory Instruments

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in light of recent decisions regarding the implementation of primary legislation, they will make provision in specific circumstances for amendable statutory instruments.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in very exceptional circumstances, for emergency regulations under the Civil Contingency Act 2004 and the preceding Emergency Powers Act 1920, provision has been made in legislation for statutory instruments to be amendable by Parliament. In other circumstances the Government believe that to make provision for amendable statutory instruments would involve excessive complication and frustrate the purpose for which delegated powers are given.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply, but hope to persuade her to improve on it.
	There is serious concern about the way in which primary legislation is now being implemented by statutory instruments which turn out to be significantly different from what was expected at the time the primary legislation was passed. For example, my noble friend Lord Kingsland has expressed reservations about the way in which the proposals to restrict trial by jury are going to be introduced. The order that is designed to cope with the prolonged protest in Parliament Square clearly goes far beyond what was expected at that time and seems clearly to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	If your Lordships are to continue to exercise restraint in not voting against statutory instruments, would it not be appropriated for the Procedure Committee and the Merits Committee to look at the case for amendable statutory instruments?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. In the two areas used as examples by the noble Lord, in relation to Parliament Square the Act refers to a distance of one kilometre; the proposal in the order is for 750 metres, so it is well inside the one kilometre. I am not clear how it is different from what Parliament expected when this was discussed.
	On the second proposal, which relates to fraud trials, there was an undertaking to carry out consultation. As the noble Lord knows, a seminar was held, chaired by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, to which representatives from the legal profession, representatives in this House and opposition spokespersons in another place were invited. Options were looked at on the basis of a paper proposed by the Attorney-General's office and a decision was reached. I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, do the Government recognise that there is a serious problem here? I am aware that we do not want something in the nature of a Committee stage debate every time we debate a statutory instrument, but could not consideration be given to some procedure for debating amendments to statutory instruments in special circumstances, such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, perhaps on the basis of a recommendation by the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is full debate when Bills go through Parliament, not only at Second Reading but in Committee and elsewhere, where the need for statutory instruments is flagged up. A procedure is then undergone in the two Houses. In some limited instances, there is what we now call the super-affirmative procedure. But the two examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are areas on which noble Lords raised concerns. Despite that, the Acts went through both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords seem to be asking for another opportunity to raise the same concerns that they raised then.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness and her colleague the Leader of another place are always keen to improve Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive. Perhaps she will consider one useful convention: for governments to publish detailed draft regulations flowing from a Bill before its Committee stage and not to press for passage of a Bill before the publication of draft regulations. Does she accept that, if regulations are not published in time for Committee, there may be a case for a new procedure for both Houses to propose amendments to regulations before finally agreeing to any new law? That seems both sensible and fair to the parliamentary process. Will the noble Baroness undertake to lay that issue on the table in any discussion of this House's conventions?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, describes anything to me as being "completely fair" I remember the recent descriptions in the press with respect to how wily he is. On that basis, I undertake to look very carefully at what the noble Lord has said. But I cannot give any undertaking to put in place a new procedure. With respect to his comments about referral to the Joint Committee looking at the conventions of both Houses, there will be terms of reference for that committee, and individuals will give evidence to it, so bearing that in mind, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to give his evidence.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council will be aware that secondary legislation hits Northern Ireland as a matter of course; we hardly ever have primary legislation there. It is vital, if there is to be some sort of democratic scrutiny, that those orders are amendable. Today, and again on Thursday, we will go to the Moses Room to consider a plethora of statutory instruments which we must take or leave. As I have said previously in the House, there will come a time when our tempers will not be constrained and we will start to vote down statutory instruments. It is time the Government came up with some way of dealing with the Northern Ireland situation.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, knows that I have some sympathy with the attempt to find an effective way of scrutinising Northern Ireland legislation in this House. We have made special arrangements to keep noble Lords informed and involved in the statutory instruments brought before the House. We take them off the Floor of this House to give as much debating time as possible. There is scope for discussion between opposition spokespersons and the relevant civil servants, and there are also regular meetings with Peers with an interest in Northern Ireland. I recognise the frustration of noble Lords with such an interest, and have raised the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My noble friend, Lord Rooker, and I will continue to press on this issue and see if there is any resolution that we can bring before the House.

Business of the House: Grand Committee Motions

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That leave be given for the fourteen Motions set down for today referring orders and regulations to a Grand Committee to be moved en bloc.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2005

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2005

Age-Related Payments Regulations 2005

Civil Partnership (Contracted-out Occupational and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005

Civil Partnership (Pensions and Benefit Payments) (Consequential, etc. Provisions) Order 2005

Civil Partnership (Amendments to Registration Provisions) Order 2005

Pension Protection Fund (Investigation by PPF Ombudsman of Complaints of Maladministration) Regulations 2005

Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Amendment Order 2005

Pension Protection Fund (Reference of Reviewable Matters to the PPF Ombudsman) Regulations 2005

Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005

Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the 14 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
	Clause 13 [Alcohol ignition interlocks]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Page 15, line 31, leave out "17" and insert "18"

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. I remind the House of my interest declared at Second Reading. It is always a pleasure to move the first amendment on a Monday afternoon after Question Time. One of my regrets about the Bill is that it looks increasingly unlikely that we will finish Committee stage before the Summer Recess.
	Amendment No. 45 would make the "alcolock" scheme unavailable to 17 year-old drivers. The scheme is controversial and novel, but it may not be objectionable. Why does the Minister desire to make the scheme available to a young driver only 17 years old, who has made such a poor start to his driving career?
	Amendment No. 46 is far more important. Subsection (12) of new Section 34D is on page 16 of the Bill. I am concerned that a sober person could release the alcolock in order to allow a person who is not sober to drive the vehicle. I accept that the Bill goes some way to addressing the problem and uses the words,
	"with intent to cause it"—
	the alcolock—
	"not to function or not to function properly".
	In the circumstances that I described, the alcolock will have functioned properly, but there will still be a drunk at the wheel. I do not think that any offence will have been committed by the person who has given a clean sample to the alcolock device. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My name is attached to Amendment No. 46 because it appears that the presence of an alcohol lock in a car—we have not actually seen such a device yet—does not prevent just anybody blowing in to it. If they did so, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has said, a drunk person could continue to drive. We seek assurance first that there is such a device; secondly, that it is proofed against being used by somebody else—really proofed, not in a way that can be got over by using a tube or something so that your mouth does not touch it; and lastly, that, if anybody uses one to permit somebody who is drunk to drive, the offence will be regarded as a serious one. The person who does it will be treated as if they had been the drunk driver.

Lord Berkeley: Can my noble friend clarify how the alcolock works? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has suggested that someone in the passenger seat could blow into the machine, enabling the engine to start. Quite often occupants of a car decide to change drivers. The driver may get tired and decide he wants to go to sleep, or he may decide that he is too drunk to drive. They may then stop the car, keep the engine running and change drivers? What is it that requires someone to blow into the machine again? Is it to make the engine start or is it when someone gets out of the driver's seat? This could lead to interesting debates as to who was driving and who was puffing into the pipe—especially if the engine is kept running, which I assume would avoid the necessity of having to recalibrate and retrigger the device. I should be grateful for an explanation from my noble friend.

Viscount Simon: It has probably been considered already but I have a suggestion to overcome this potential problem—that is, to have a simple pressure switch on the driver's seat so that no one can vacate that seat without the mechanism being operated.

Baroness Hanham: I am not sure whether the Minister wishes to move his amendments in this group before I speak to our Amendment No. 49 but perhaps I should go ahead.
	In speaking to Amendment No. 49, I wish to question why Clause 14(1)(a) and (b) suggests that the experiment should last until 2010 or for as long as the Secretary of State may wish it to last. Although we may think that 2010 is roaring up on us it is still five years away, and five years seems quite long enough to carry out any experiment and to report back on it without the Government having the latitude to extend it interminably, presumably by only an affirmative or negative order. The amendment seeks to delete paragraph (b) so that we know when the period of experimentation will finish.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: From the criminal justice point of view, particularly during the experimental period, if the public are to gain and retain confidence in the alcolock scheme the Bench must use exemplary justice.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for speaking to her Amendment No. 49. I shall speak to the government amendments, which are of a purely technical nature and do not affect the content of the Bill.
	By inserting new sections into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Clause 13 makes provisions to give courts the power, in certain circumstances, to offer offenders the opportunity to participate in an alcohol ignition interlock programme. Part of that process involves the court making an order for the offender to participate in such a programme.
	Under proposed new section 34D(7) a court shall not make an order unless certain conditions apply. One of the conditions is that the offender appears to the court to be over the age of 17. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggests that this should be 18. However, the condition specified in the clause applies in the parallel situation where a court makes an order for a drink/drive offender to attend a drink/drive rehabilitation course under Section 34A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This places an obligation on the court to be satisfied that the offender is of an age sufficient to make him eligible for a licence to drive a motor vehicle.
	I do not see any strong arguments for restricting the scheme. I would remind the Committee that in view of the lengthy period of disqualification—at least a year—that will precede the time when an offender gets back behind the wheel—even the youngest offender will be 18 in practice before they are in that situation. Although I recognise the point being made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the process envisaged by which justice will be dispensed makes it inevitable in this area.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, have identified an issue that has been examined at some length in the context of alcohol ignition programmes where they have been implemented in other countries. However, I am not in a position to accept Amendment No. 46. Circumvention of the system is never likely to be stopped completely. There is always a problem of enforcement regarding such activity. Frankly, short of locking offenders in prison, it is hard to prevent them driving while disqualified—except through the deterrent effect of the risk and consequences of being caught. We know that some people do in fact take this risk. The only response that we can apply is a suitable punishment when that is done.
	Experience from other countries suggests that participants in alcohol ignition interlock programmes come, on the whole, with a positive frame of mind. They want to drive; they want to be compliant with the law; and they are willing to pay for it. All of those factors are likely to obtain when we introduce a similar programme. They are not inclined to risk a loss by cheating. Anyone driving while not in compliance with the programme conditions would be driving while disqualified—and liable on conviction to a custodial sentence consistent with that serious offence.
	I was asked to specify some details by my noble friends. The key to the system is the black box type recorder which allows the participant to be held to account for all attempts to give breath specimens to start the car. I understand that the technology is being developed to allow individual drivers to be identified by a breath specimen. That is not effective at present in those countries where the device is used, but the technology is being developed. Of course noble Lords are anxious about the situation in which we may introduce the system where that sophisticated dimension—an imprint on the nature of the individual's breath sample, guaranteeing which driver has provided it—may not be in force. Once we have that technology, any false specimens would certainly be detected and investigated. It would become clear that cheating could not possibly succeed.
	If this system were used, the likelihood of someone successfully providing a specimen on behalf of the person on the programme would be small indeed. We have made provision, under subsection (12) of our new Section 34D, for an offence of interfering with the proper functioning of the interlock, and we do not feel it necessary to extend it to the specific circumstances which the amendment identifies. I cannot at this stage promise that the full technology will be in place. However, the expectation is certainly that it will be worked on and that the full programme will operate that way once implemented. The obvious fact is that a person who is compliant in cheating in this way would, if discovered, find that the driver would be guilty of a very serious offence—and that the person who collaborated in interfering would themselves find trouble being visited on their head.
	In summary, we expect to be operating a foolproof technology. If we have an interim period when we are not, it is equally clear that we are faced with the same situation: if people cheat by driving while disqualified they are balancing that cheating against the risk that if they are found out the consequences will be severe. Of course, that would also apply in this case.
	We would all recognise that some people are prepared to take such risks. If there were none at all they would not appear before the courts and we would not have the disastrous details that are revealed on occasions. The vast majority of people who are required to meet these obligations do so in good faith. I emphasise again that we expect participants within the framework of this particular provision to be already of a mind to comply with the law and eager to make progress with regard to their situations. Therefore, cheating ought to be at a minimum.
	The two government amendments, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, deal with two instances in Clause 13 where the wording currently in the Bill is in error. Reference is made on page 18 at line 27 and at line 42 to,
	"an alcolock ignition interlock programme",
	where the correct term should have been,
	"an alcohol ignition interlock programme".
	I apologise for those two mistakes. The amendments are merely to clear up that technical error.
	On the last amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I must refer to the early development of the drink-drive rehabilitation courses and the arrangements put in place under the Road Traffic Act 1991 to allow courts to refer offenders to such courses. On successful completion of such a course an offender can have a reduction in his period of disqualification. The scheme was begun as an experiment in a limited number of court areas but, in 2000, after evidence had been gathered that reoffending among course attendees was around two and a half times lower than among non-attendees, it was rolled out nationally. I can happily report to the House that the scheme continues to be successful.
	We now have in prospect, in the form of alcohol ignition interlock programmes, a new disposal for which the scale application may be slightly narrower but the impact could still be significant. Broadly speaking, referral to a programme works in the same way as referral to a drink-drive rehabilitation course. Accordingly, the legislative provisions have been modelled very closely on those for the drink-drive courses under Sections 34A, 34B and 34C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Those sections have clearly served us well and to a large degree we have stuck with them.
	Clause 14 provides for an experimental period for the,
	"alcohol ignition interlock programme".
	Amendment No. 49 would omit the references in paragraph (a) to "2010" and in paragraph (b) to "such later time etc". The intended effect is, I presume, to remove provision for a date by which a decision should be taken whether to move from an experimental period to a full scheme. This is a worthwhile provision and I would resist its removal.
	I hope that I have put into context the way in which we expect the scheme will work and reassured noble Lords about its general operation. I have indicated that we are making progress with regard to the technology to make it even more foolproof. Of course, we are vulnerable to those who take the extreme risks of cheating and are prepared to risk the condign punishment consequent upon such cheating. But that dimension is ever with us. The only thing that I can report is that we are intent on making sure that, in all aspects of the observance of motoring law in those terms, the cheats do not prosper. In general terms, we think that we have got the framework of the provision right, with the exception of the two minor mistakes that I seek to correct with my two amendments.

Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, speaks, I remind the Committee of the speech that was made during Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Once again, the Government are asking us to take them on trust. We are being asked to pass a law allowing the Government to introduce something, but they cannot even tell us that the technology that they propose to introduce actually exists. If we are being asked to pass something into law, we want to know that it works and that it has been tried out. It should not exist as a figment of somebody's imagination.
	The Minister drew comfort from the fact that the people who go on drink-driving courses were two and a half times less likely to offend than, presumably, those who do not. But people who are offered the opportunity of going on such courses are picked out as being likely to benefit from going on them. From the people who have broken the law, those who are most likely to be apologetic and compliant are picked out.
	I remind the Minister that I raised with him last Monday the question of the huge number of disqualified drivers who are driving. They constitute a great danger and do not seem either to be apprehended by the police, because the number of traffic police has been so much reduced, or, apparently, to figure greatly in the Government's priorities. I shall study what the Minister said, but it may well be a matter to which we will return at a later date.

Baroness Hanham: Before my noble friend responds on his amendment, perhaps I may pick up on something that the Minister said. As I understand Clause 14, which is the clause I was talking about, it allows an experimental period in which the alcohol lock may be tested. The Minister equated that with the drink-driving situation. He went on to say that, once it was understood that the drink-driving course had been effective, it would be rolled out.
	I do read the clause as allowing the Government to do that. Clause 14 refers to an "experimental period". My argument was that an experimental period of five years is surely long enough. Clause 17(7)(b) would enable an experimental period to be extended, even though no decision had been made about whether the alcohol lock was working. The Government could extend it for another 10 years if they so wished. All they would need to do is bring a statutory instrument before both Houses.
	If we are talking about experimental periods going on for longer than five years, the Government should consider carefully whether another experimental period is what they should introduce. They should be either abandoning it or rolling it out.
	There is a bit more to the provision than our initial probing drew out, and I should be grateful if the Minister would comment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was a little harsh in his condemnation of the technology. The part about which I was expressing reservations was the breath imprint—whether we can make absolutely certain that the breath sample that has been given is identifiable and that we know that it is from the driver who will drive the car.
	It is not the case that the technology is weak. That is an added dimension that will cut out the cheating to which noble Lords referred earlier; that is, somebody else acting on behalf of the driver, which would be a serious offence on the part both of the driver and the person who was complicit in the cheating. The technology is entirely secure. It is used by the courts in north America. We have a research project working on it now, and the equipment can guarantee that, if the breath contains a non-permissible level of alcohol, the ignition will not work. I reassure the noble Lord that that part of the technology is secure. The only aspect on which I was asking for an element of understanding from the Committee was the further refinement of the technology that identifies the breath imprint.

Lord Berkeley: I find my noble friend's explanation interesting. He is saying not only that the equipment can identify an individual's breath but that it can accurately identify the amount of alcohol in his blood. If it is so accurate and its identification of the person is so unique, would it be useful in the identity cards that the Government propose, rather than some of the other criteria?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My noble friend is trying to lead me into the wilderness rather than along the path of grace by introducing that subject. Suffice it to say that he knows the arguments about personal identification on identity cards, which will be widely debated in the other place and in this House when the issue comes before us.
	We are talking about breath for the obvious reason that the issue is about alcohol. We have a secure test. There is the problem of whether people can cheat by having the wrong person supplying the sample, and that is the part of the technology on which we seek to make progress.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that I do not want to have it both ways with regard to the legislation. If the date 2010 is in the Bill—I want it retained—that is the date on which the experimental period will end. After such an experiment over a number of years, even in such a difficult area, I should have thought that the House would expect the Government to decide whether the scheme was viable. The provision in the Bill will guarantee that.

Baroness Hanham: I am sorry to be trying. It is correct that Clause 14(1)(a) refers to "the end of 2010", and that subsection (8) states that the,
	"order . . . is not exercisable after the end of 2010",
	However, Clause 14(1)(b) expands on subsection (1)(a) by stating:
	"or such later time as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
	If the experiment is supposed to end by 2010, why is the provision opened up so that it can be extended indefinitely? We ought to agree that that provision should be removed so that there is no doubt that the experiment will end in 2010. If the Government require it to be extended further, proper means will have to be found to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear the noble Baroness, and I hope that she will take me at face value. The intention is to get the experimental period under way and to conclude it by 2010. We have written it into the Bill that we shall need a decision by 2010. If difficulties are such that we cannot make a definitive decision in 2010, we have merely made provision for an extension. I am trying to identify our intention as best I can. The experimental period will begin shortly and will conclude by 2010.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It may be convenient to remind the Committee that we have spent 28 minutes discussing a relatively minor point and we do have a lot of material to get through.
	I am grateful for the Minister's clarification of the matter. However, I am not happy with the detail of his response to my Amendment No. 46. It is important to remember that alcohol deadens inhibitions and judgment.
	I refer to the words,
	"not to function or not to function properly"
	in new Section 34D(12) on page 16.
	I believe that those words constitute a loophole. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot improve the drafting of the Bill in that regard. However, in the mean time and subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
	Page 18, line 27, leave out "alcolock" and insert "alcohol"
	Page 18, line 42, leave out "alcolock" and insert "alcohol" .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Experimental period for section 13]:
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"WEARING OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
	After section 16 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (wearing of protective headgear) insert—
	"16A WEARING OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
	The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding in motor vehicles of any class specified in the regulations to wear EN471 compliant reflective garments when leaving the vehicle at a roadside, except where the vehicle is parked.""

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 50 would introduce a requirement for car occupants to wear retro-reflective jackets if they leave their car at the roadside; for example, in the event of a breakdown or accident. We discussed this issue at some length at Second Reading so it is only proper that we return to it today in Committee.
	The essence of this proposed new section is that it is designed to tackle the fatality and casualty rate among pedestrians involved in road accidents. By "pedestrians", I mean someone who gets out of a car and thereby becomes a pedestrian as they are on their feet on the road. Some 774 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in 2003, representing some 22 per cent of the total number of persons killed.
	In 2001, the last year for which figures are available, 44 people were killed or seriously injured as a result of vehicles being parked on the hard shoulder of motorways. It is estimated that 28 per cent of all accidents involving a car and a pedestrian can be attributed to either the driver looking but not seeing the pedestrian or to the person hit wearing dark or inconspicuous clothing. Enhanced conspicuity at the roadside offers an opportunity to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents.
	Indeed, the US Department for Transport found in a study that reflective clothing has been shown to increase the visibility of someone on the road by a factor of five. The same study found that wearing a reflective vest increased the distance at which the driver could see a pedestrian by around 159 metres.
	Wearing a retro-reflective vest makes a person more visible, allowing more time for drivers to react. Requiring car passengers unexpectedly forced to leave their car to wear retro-reflective jackets would reduce the number of road accidents, in particular in the event of breakdowns on busy carriageways or motorways. I understand that similar measures have already been implemented, or will be implemented shortly, in Italy, Spain, Austria and Portugal. At a cost of as little as £5 a vest, the price seems cheap compared with the cost of dealing with road accidents in the United Kingdom, which in 2002 amounted to around £17,760 million.
	When this issued was discussed in another place the Minister said that the Government would consider such a scheme. I hope that the Minister can provide us today with an update on the Government's latest position. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: This is an extremely well meant amendment and I am interested in the statistics that the noble Baroness produced. However, it is extremely impractical. If it were to apply to motorways only that might be one thing, but the amendment as drafted would apply to all roads, including urban roads, at all times, including mid-summer days in bright sunlight. It would mean that every single four-seater car in the country would have to carry four garments at all times in case a driver with four passengers ran out of petrol and the driver had to don one to go to the garage and his passengers had to don one each to go to the nearest café or pub. I suggest that theft would be an enormous problem, since the garments would be almost identical and not easily attributable to any one owner. If this requirement were to apply to motorways only, there might be something to be said for it, but not in respect of all roads at all times.

Earl Attlee: I always carry a high visibility jacket in my vehicle because I regularly need it. I do not dispute the effectiveness of high visibility clothing. I am sorry to be unhelpful to my noble friend, but modern vehicles very rarely break down. However, my noble friend is right to say that a very high risk is attached to getting out of a vehicle on the driver's side, especially on motorways. The first lesson on a driving course is to locate and name major components of the vehicle. The second lesson is to mount and adopt the correct driving position. That includes being carefully taught to go towards the driver's door facing the traffic and to leave it still facing the traffic, that is, going towards the rear of the vehicle.
	The problem is that a high visibility jacket will be used very infrequently and it will therefore be kept in the boot. It will not be kept in the passenger compartment. Or will we prosecute motorists for not having the high visibility jacket in the passenger compartment because the boot will not be good enough? There will be a problem because an unskilled driver can still be careless while getting his high visibility jacket out of the boot.
	This is not relevant to the amendment, but I would support a requirement to carry and deploy a warning triangle. However, the Highway Code effectively advises against using a warning triangle on the motorway. I would have thought that the thing to do would be to deploy a warning triangle 150 metres behind the vehicle, and then change the tyre. That is a far better warning than the high visibility jacket. I do not expect the Minister to respond to this point, because it will not be in her briefing, but it would be helpful if she would write to me about why we do not have a requirement to use a warning triangle on the motorway and why the Highway Code in fact advises against them. I believe that that is the opposite of what the Germans say. Why is our Highway Code different from the Germany highway code in respect of a warning triangle? If the Minister will write to me on that point, it will avoid me tabling an amendment on it at a later stage.
	I apologise for being unhelpful to my noble friend, but I think this would be an unnecessary regulation.

Lord Berkeley: I am sorry to hear that the cars of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, break down so often. Perhaps it is his heavy, wide, long lorries that break down often. He is quite right that he should carry a vest, and he does do so.
	Noble Lords will be aware that a large percentage of lorry drivers, both delivery drivers and long-distance drivers, wear these vests all the time. It is standard practice and I suspect that they are required to do so by their contract of employment because of the safety factor. Therefore, the logic of requiring all users of cars and motorcycles to wear them is there. But the practicalities worry me, as well as other noble Lords. If car occupants are going to have to wear vests when they get out of the car, then why not make all pedestrians wears them because drivers have become pedestrians in the process of getting out of the car? We can have an interesting debate. It is interesting to know that most lorry drivers wear vests for safety reasons. There is a significant benefit in that.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I can confirm that, in my experience, my delivery lorry driving stepson wears one of these vests all the time. It is normal practice. This amendment is undoubtedly going in the right direction, and wearing retro-reflective vests should be strongly encouraged. But, like other noble Lords, I am a bit wary of putting it on a statutory basis.
	Reflective vests do not cost very much. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, there should be greater emphasis on ensuring that you get out on the near-side and avoid getting out on the off-side, even if it means clambering over. There may be a risk to health of doing something to yourself while climbing over the gear stick, as there is a risk of dislocating an arm, a shoulder, or both, while trying to put on such a vest while in your seat—that poses a new set of problems. But we are discussing the first of three "conspicuity"—perhaps one should say "visibility"— amendments. They go in the right direction.

Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in this debate. While I understand the noble Baroness' concerns, I must disappoint her, because I shall resist the amendment. Amendment No. 50 generally would require motor vehicle occupants—drivers, riders and passengers—to wear reflective clothing when leaving their vehicles, except when they are parked. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her reasons for tabling the new clause.
	We advise pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists to wear fluorescent clothing during the day and reflective clothing at night to improve their visibility to other road users. That advice is in the Highway Code. The code also advises drivers and other vehicle occupants on where they should stand if their vehicle breaks down, with special advice regarding motorways. Our leaflet, A Guide to Safer Motorway Driving, also contains advice on what to do when a vehicle breaks down on a motorway. Drivers and occupants are not at great risk when they follow that advice. For example, regarding motorways, they are advised to wait on a nearby bank or verge, well away from the traffic. Therefore, we do not believe that we should go further and require the wearing of special clothing. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I note her comments. There is no doubt that the proposed new clause was tabled due to the dangers that people face when they get out of vehicles. There have been many reports of people who get out to change a tyre, or because they have run of petrol, or because, having got out, they could not make their phones work on the motorway and they set off walking in bad visibility. They could not be seen and they have been killed by something coming in the other direction. To some extent, my problems would be overcome if the Minister were to consider including in the Highway Code guidance that reflective garments should be available in a vehicle if people were to get out. I have seen people get out on a motorway to change a wheel with nothing on at all. They might be sprayed by a passing vehicle. I could not possibly change a wheel, but I have seen people incautiously doing that.
	Will the Minister reflect on whether extra guidance could be provided in, say, the Highway Code, stating that it would be sensible to put on protective clothing if you get out on a motorway or, indeed, anywhere—because country lanes are almost as bad, if not worse, for people getting out to walk, if, for example, they do not have a mobile phone? For today's purposes, I shall withdraw the amendment, but, perhaps we might consider before the next stage whether such strong guidance might be provided.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: What does the noble Baroness mean by the changing of tyres by people "with nothing on at all"?

Baroness Crawley: For the benefit of the Official Report, I meant without any protective clothes on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 51:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"RETRO-REFLECTIVE MARKINGS
	In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 80 (approval marks) insert—
	"80A RETRO-REFLECTIVE MARKINGS
	The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape complying with ECE 104 to international category vehicles N2 and N3 and on goods trailers under the international classification 03 and 04 newly registered in the United Kingdom.""

Lord Hanningfield: The aim of this amendment is to increase the safety of heavy goods vehicles with the fitting of retro-reflective markings principally along the side of HGV trailer units.
	With your indulgence, I shall take a moment to explain the reasoning behind the need for such a clause. Goods vehicles represent 1.4 per cent of all licensed motor vehicles in the UK, yet 15 per cent of all fatal casualties in road accidents in 2003 were the result of an accident involving an HGV. Occupants of commercial vehicles account for only 8 per cent of all casualties on trunk roads, yet accidents involving these vehicles account for 26 per cent of the total.
	The contribution of HGVs to road fatalities is therefore disproportionate to the number of such vehicles in use. Action needs to be taken to help prevent accidents involving HGVs and reduce the number of people killed and injured.
	Forty-two per cent of all fatalities from road accidents occur in darkness, even though the Department of Transport admits that traffic is lighter at night-time. In the UK in 2001, there were more than 9,000 collisions where an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent of these cases the HGV was struck on its side. Recent research has found that 37 per cent of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late. The same study also found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced accidents involving trucks and passenger cars under poor-visibility conditions by 95 per cent. The US Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that the introduction of retro-reflective tape has reduced side-impact collisions with HGVs by around 17 per cent.
	There needs to be a greater role for passive lighting, such as reflective strips, to address this problem. Passive retro-reflective lighting works without the need of any kind of power, as light from headlights from approaching vehicles is simply reflected back to drivers.
	Current UK regulations state that all HGVs in the UK must be fitted with rear retro-reflective markings that meet certain prescribed standards. However, the UK does not currently require retro-reflective markings to be fitted to the side of such vehicles. The problem of side-impact collisions with HGVs is therefore not addressed.
	Already, some of the large distribution groups, such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer, have voluntarily adopted such markings on their long and heavy vehicles, and we are seeing a growing number of European countries adopting similar measures.
	The overall cost of such a step would be minimal compared to the cost associated with accidents on UK roads. A study conducted by the department this year found a significant cost benefit for fitting retro-reflective line markings to the rear and side of HGVs newly registered in the UK.
	The most effective way of implementing such a scheme in the first instance would be to require all newly built vehicles to comply. This would avoid imposing a heavy financial burden on fleet operators in retro-fitting all vehicles at the same time.
	In conclusion, reducing side impacts with HGVs by enhancing visibility would significantly reduce the number of people killed or injured on UK roads. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, Amendment No. 52:
	Line 8, leave out from "to" to end of line 9 and insert "all vehicles first registered on or after 1st January 2006"

Viscount Simon: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has reminded me that I have not declared certain interests. I should have done so last week. These include being president of GEM Motoring Assist; president of the Driving Instructors' Association—and I hold the latter's "diamond" advanced driving certificate; and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I hold a gold driving certificate from RoSPA, I am police class 1 trained, and I still do advanced roads policing traffic courses. In addition to that, I still go out regularly on traffic patrol. Unfortunately my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham is not in his place, but I was in the area where he lives only last Friday night.
	My Amendment No. 52 is an amendment to Amendment No. 51 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. His amendment is excellent, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. Consider a car at night travelling at the national speed limit on a motorway which is the first to come across a large vehicle crashed into the central reservation and lying side-on to the motorway. The driver of the car will, in all probability, not see the large vehicle and will collide with it. The car driver will almost certainly be caught in the collision. If the large vehicle has reflective tape affixed to it, the chances of a crash happening are reduced, as the vehicle will be seen sooner. That aspect has been addressed by the noble Lord.
	That is all well and good, but why is the safety proposal limited to large vehicles only? If one car hits another in similar circumstances, death, once more, is certainly inevitable. So my amendment proposes that all vehicles should have reflective tape affixed all around, thereby adding to their visibility in the dark.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, addressed the cost of the fixing of reflective tape. I am led to believe that it will not be significant—less than half a tank-full of fuel. That is considerably less than the insurance implications of a crash. I have reflective tape fixed to my vehicle and so does my wife.
	Members of the Committee may believe that as number plates are already made of reflective material the small vehicle would be seen well in advance of approach. That is why I have specifically talked about vehicles side-on. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. As he said, research indicates that retro-reflective markings on HGVs can prevent a great many crashes and nasty accidents. I know that the UNECE is in favour of the measure. It could be applied to all heavy goods vehicles and, indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, advocated, it could even be applied to all vehicles. Research suggests that it would in particular be a good idea to apply it to heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment but remind the Committee that some of the dodgiest trailers are not operated by HGVs but are likely to be home-made or agricultural. I therefore believe that the amendment should include such vehicles.

Earl Attlee: I have rather more sympathy for the amendment, but I am concerned about the need for a competitive market in this material. The market appears to be dominated by one supplier and I have found the material to be rather expensive for what it is. I could use it on some of my equipment, but the cost deters me. Before accepting the principle of the amendment, I urge the Minister to review the market. She needs to see at least three manufacturers and several wholesalers.
	However, I am absolutely convinced that the reflective tape is extremely effective. I do not believe that we need a few reflective plates on the side of a vehicle, as we have on the rear, but that the whole outline of HGVs should be covered in the material. In a side-impact accident, the motorist does not realise that a lorry is in front of him.
	As on the first day in Committee, other Members have made the precise point that I wanted to make. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke of the possibility of a road-traffic accident, immediately after which there are no vehicle lights. It is therefore easy to run into the remains of that accident. There is also the possibility of a total electrical failure on a goods vehicle.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, seeks immediately to make it a requirement for all HGV vehicles to be fitted with retro-reflective tape—

Viscount Simon: All vehicles.

Earl Attlee: I would not go so far as making it a requirement for all vehicles, but would suggest that it applies to all new vehicles immediately and after five years to all HGVs. The reason for that is that when the vehicle is operated by its second owner it is more likely to become involved in operations that are not reckless but where an accident is more likely to occur. Marks and Spencer is going up and down the motorway. The second operator is more likely to be involved in potentially difficult situations. I support the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Earl referred to a rather high cost for marking the sides of an HGV. Will he give some impression of what that price might be?

Earl Attlee: Unfortunately I have come to the Committee ill prepared, but suffice it to say that it is enough to deter me from using the material.

Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short but useful debate. I understand the Committee's interest and concern about the use of retro-reflective tape. I share the interest and concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. However, power to regulate the use of the material is already available and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
	Previous research indicated the potential for increased visibility to reduce accidents by the wider fitment of ECE regulation 104 reflective tape, but it also highlighted disproportionate cost. The Department for Transport commissioned a new review of the benefits and costs of mandating the use of such material on goods vehicles, trailers and large passenger-carrying vehicles. Its final report, Assessment of the safety benefit of retro-reflective markings on HGVs and buses, was issued on 18 May, and copies are available in the Library.
	The review updated our understanding of the issue. I hope that the Committee will see that we are being positive about Members' suggestions. It also updated our understanding of the costs involved in applying retro-reflective tape. It also indicated a more favourable cost/benefit ratio, compared with the earlier research, for the application of such tape to some categories of vehicle. My department will now consider how best, including wide consultation, to take this forward.
	The issue of mandating retro-reflective tape for all vehicles, as my noble friend suggests, has not arisen before. Any advantages and disadvantages, such as a possible reduction in the ready recognition of slow-moving, abnormal and indivisible loads and their retro-reflective marked escorts, have not been researched. It would be wrong to give guarantees on the basis of so little research. However, the department will keep in mind my noble friend Lord Simon's view on the matter. I hope that with that explanation he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: Will the noble Baroness confirm that powers exist, if required, for the Government to require it to be fitted to heavy goods vehicles? That was a particular concern of mine.
	My noble friend Lord Attlee suggested that the cost was for only one supplier, but with market forces as they are I would have thought that other people will start making the stuff if a great deal is to be required; and there should be commercial opportunities for other people. Therefore, if considerably more tape were to be used the costs might come down.
	I would like to confirm that powers already exist and that therefore the Government could do this now without any amendment to the legislation.

Baroness Crawley: Yes, I can confirm that powers exist by means of regulation through a statutory instrument under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The noble Lord makes a good point about the market. Should circumstances change, the market will respond accordingly.
	The noble Lord talked about side impact. He will know that the UK already has reflex reflectors and repeater lights on many vehicles, but I realise that he is talking about increased visibility through marking that would go along both the rear and the side of vehicles. Yes, the powers exist and yes, because of the updated research, we are reconsidering the matter.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend and other Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate. I find it interesting that research has taken place with regard to HGVs, whereas, of course, most crashes and road deaths involve smaller vehicles. However, I understand what my noble friend said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 52, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness said, and I hope that the Government will consider taking those powers. I am sure that we will be asking questions and debating this further. Before I withdraw the amendment, I want to reinforce the number of accidents that occur with heavy goods vehicles. We know that. The more that can be done to prevent them, the better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 53:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"Cycle lights
	A pedal cycle fitted with a flashing or pulsating white or red light shall be deemed to satisfy the lighting requirement of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/1796)."

Lord Hanningfield: Under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, a cycle fitted with a pulsating or flashing light is not lawfully lit. Many cyclists recognise the importance of making themselves visible to other motorists and road users, and many purchase flashing or pulsating lights or lights that are comprised of light-emitting diodes. Many of them purchase that equipment in cycle shops, not realising that, technically speaking, if they use them on their cycle, it will not be properly lit for the purposes of the 1989 regulations, unless the lights are used in addition to other fixed lights.
	The police may not enforce that law much because they recognise that it is better to have a cycle with a pulsating or flashing light, albeit an illegal one, than one with no lighting at all. The significance of the existing ambiguity in the law is found in the civil courts: if a cyclist is involved in an accident, civil liability is based on whether they were complying with the road traffic laws. If the cyclist has a pulsating or flashing light, but no other illumination, it is possible that they will be regarded as having breached the law on lighting requirements, reducing their chances of receiving damages and perhaps raising the issue of contributory negligence. That is a significant issue for cyclists and road safety.
	Many cyclists have used their judgment and reached the conclusion, which many road users share, that a cycle with a flashing or pulsating light is probably more visible than one without. The need for technical consistency to prevent any flashing or pulsating lights being used on the highway other than by emergency vehicles has been eroded by the effluxion of time and the behaviour by cyclists on our streets.
	If the noble Baroness is unable to accept the amendment today, she is guilty of giving out mixed messages: on the one hand the Government cannot accept white pulsating lights, but on the other it is giving a wink and nod that their continued use is acceptable. It is time that we cleared up that anomaly, moved with the times and accepted that technology in this case has the ability to save countess lives and needless injuries.
	This is a sensible and common sense-based amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness, being the sensible and commonsense person that she is, will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This is the third of the visibility amendments and perhaps not the strongest of the three. I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I wish that all cyclists were lit. Far too many are riding around without any lights at all.
	Sometimes I see people cycling with flashing or pulsating lights attached to their helmets, rucksacks or visibility belts. I presume that that is not lawful. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will be able to tell us about that.
	As somebody who has been a cyclist over many years I have often wondered why the fitting of lights to bicycles is not a compulsory part of the construction. There is no guarantee that they would continue to work for ever but it would be a good start.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I very much support the amendment because it is about standardisation and ease of enforcement. Both are greatly needed given that, in many cases—and obviously with notable exceptions—the behaviour of cyclists is so horrendous.
	On several occasions at Question Time in your Lordships' House we have had several replies about the number of motorcycle accidents and deaths and the number of motorcyclists who occupy National Health Service wards. I do not believe that we have had a Question or an Answer about pedal cyclists, but I suspect that the rate of accidents is very high with very serious injuries to the cyclists themselves. It is very rare that the motorist will be harmed. Therefore any measure of this nature—particularly at night-time—that will make cyclists more visible in a standardised and enforceable way is greatly to be desired.

Lord Berkeley: As a regular cyclist, I very much support the amendment. I use a fixed and a flashing light, front and back, because it is very useful to be able to say that you comply with the law. However, if you watch anybody else's lights, the ones that stand out are the flashing ones, as other noble Lords have said. It makes an ass of the law that you cannot use flashing lights but you can used fixed ones, when the flashing ones are said to be much better.
	When we were debating the Railways and Transport Safety Bill two or three years ago, I remember either my noble friend or his predecessor saying that the Transport Research Laboratory was still doing tests on the compatibility of flashing lights. Three years have passed. How long does it take to test a cycle light?
	Flashing lights are not cheap. The good ones cost around £20, which is probably more than it costs to put reflective tape around a lorry. As other noble Lords have said, it is a very important measure to take. It is one means of protecting yourself from being hit by somebody else; of demonstrating that you want to be seen; and helping the majority of cyclists who do try to obey the law do so without having to buy so many lights. It is about time that these experiments were completed and that a set of high quality and reasonably prices lights was available at all cycle shops.
	I have just one word of warning. I switched on my light on Oxford station platform one day this winter and was told that I must not have the cycle lights on while on the station platform because it could be misinterpreted for a train in distress. I had a bit of a giggle about that but I am sure that the person who told me was right. More seriously it really is time that this matter was resolved. The amendment gives the Minister the ideal opportunity to do so.

Baroness Crawley: I am about to say almost that. Common sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, implored on us, is about to prevail.
	I can understand the noble Lord's desire to allow the use of flashing lights on pedal cycles, and I share his interest in that area. However, our lawyers have informed us that the finer points of cycle lighting are regulated under secondary legislation, so such an amendment should be handled in a statutory instrument.
	However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will be pleased to hear that the department undertook a public consultation exercise to amend the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations to permit the use of flashing lights on bicycles as part of a package of amendments. The response to that proposal was generally favourable. A statutory instrument to implement it has not yet been brought forward because several other subjects dealt with in the same consultation were more controversial and required further consideration. In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, that was the reason for the time lapse.
	We now intend to bring forward a statutory instrument amending the lighting regulations—by the end of this month, we hope, and almost certainly by the end of October. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. She says that the Government will bring forward an amending regulation by the end of this month or the end of October. I will have to trust the Government. Obviously, if they have not brought forward such a regulation by then, we will be able to return to the matter later in the Bill. I look forward to the regulation and thank the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 54 to 56 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Penalty points]:

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 20, line 41, leave out ""2–6" and insert ""3–6"

Viscount Simon: I do not have much to say about this amendment. The Explanatory Notes on graduated fixed penalties refer to,
	"the circumstances of the particular offence . . . the nature of the offence, [and] its severity".
	The penalty will become totally standard: neither the severity nor the circumstances will be taken into account. If someone exceeds the speed limit by a certain amount, they will get a certain number of points. I find it inconsistent that the number of points on a driver's licence should be reduced to two instead of three. That is the main reason why I want the variation to be between three and six.
	Any police officer on traffic patrol who pulls someone up for exceeding the speed limit will, and can, take into account such circumstances, whereas a safety camera cannot. I recall stopping someone who had been driving at just over 90 mph in a 60 mph zone. The driver was driving perfectly safely and the circumstances were such that, although theoretically he should have been disqualified, he was sent off with only a ticking-off. In such situations, discretion can be exercised according to the circumstances of the offence. Three penalty points, not two, should be the minimum. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee: In supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on Amendment No. 57, I should like to address Amendment No. 61, also included in this group, on graduated fixed penalties for speeding. The amendment would ensure that the minimum penalty for speeding remained at three points in urban areas where vulnerable road users are most at risk. A range of three to six points would apply in 20 and 30 mph zones elsewhere, and a range of two to six could apply elsewhere.
	The principle of graduated penalties for speeding is a positive one. However, there are serious flaws with the proposals circulated in the Government's discussion document last year. It included a penalty of two points for driving at up to 39 mph in a 30 mph zone. Reducing penalties in those areas sends the wrong message to drivers about the safety and acceptability of exceeding the speed limit by relatively small margins. A lower penalty for exceeding the 30 mph limit would suggest that breaking the speed limit is thought by the Government to be less serious than at present. It undermines much of the progress on speed awareness achieved by the THINK! campaign.
	Lower penalties for speeding are unlikely to have a positive result in terms of road safety, and at worst may lead to excess speed becoming more prevalent. In particular, a lower penalty for driving at up to 39 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone would be undesirable. For pedestrians struck by a vehicle, the shift from mainly survivable to mainly fatal injuries occurs between 30 and 40 miles per hour. A pedestrian is more than twice as likely to be killed at 40 miles per hour as at 30. The risk to car occupants also rises exponentially between 20 and 40 miles per hour. This suggests that encouraging compliance with the 30 miles per hour limit is of key importance. A reduced penalty for driving at up to 39 miles per hour undermines this. If a lower penalty comes to apply, consideration should be given to only applying it in speed limits of 40 miles per hour or above, to reflect the increased risks posed by speeding in villages and urban areas.
	It has been reported in the press that the proposals for lowering the penalty resulted in part from a concern about the economic and political implications of driver disqualification. It should be noted, however, that despite the recent sharp increase in the number of penalty points issued for speeding, the number of drivers disqualified for totting up or for speeding has remained static over the last 10 years. This suggests that the present system may be successful in persuading speeding drivers to change their behaviour.
	Ministers have previously indicated that the speeds at which different penalties will apply should be determined by regulation after further consultation. Therefore, this is a good moment for the Minister to reassure us that the proposal that goes to consultation will not contain the option of a lower penalty in built-up areas.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I support both the previous speakers, and remind the House that I am the President of RoSPA, part of the Safer Streets Coalition—which is 29 social justice organisations from all sectors of society, who have united to raise concerns about the impact of road danger on transport choice, health, social inclusion and quality of life.
	The Safer Streets Coalition welcomes the principle of graduated fixed penalty points. However, they had expected the mechanism to be used only to vary penalties upward, in order to change driver attitudes to speeding and to discourage repeat offending. This was indicated in the 2000 consultation, Road Traffic Penalties. The coalition strongly objects to a reduction in points and fines.
	There is no evidence that lowering the penalty for speeding will improve road safety. Speed, whether excess—breaking the posted speed limit—or inappropriate—driving too fast for the conditions—is a contributory factor in as many as one in three road deaths. Despite this, speeding is treated more leniently than any other offence that can kill and maim. The Bill's proposals send entirely the wrong message to drivers. I firmly believe this, and ask the Government to think again on the issue.

Lord Hanningfield: I have tabled Amendment No. 58 and Amendment No. 60 in this group, which are similar to ones the other day—probing amendments, highlighting that the Government are making a mistake in simply equating the gravity of a speeding offence with the extent to which the limit was exceeded. It is apparent to everyone who has studied the subject that the circumstances in which speeding takes place are important. I do not agree with some of the earlier comments that—always—exceeding a speed limit of 30 miles per hour is the same offence.
	I think some 58 per cent of road users in urban areas often ignore speed limits. It is important that the motorists accept the speed limits, and it might be that at some times we need to be more flexible about changing speed limits. At some times, such as outside a primary school during the day, even if it is in a rural area, the limit needs to be 20 miles per hour. But it might be a very good road at 12 o'clock at night, when you would have a job to convince a driver that he should travel past that school at only 20 miles an hour.
	As we have heard in this Chamber, there are many different views on this subject. The Government have referred to the gravity of the offence and the amendments seek to probe what the Government have in mind in regard to how the gravity of the offence will be assessed. As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, the matter is going out to consultation, and many views will be submitted before the Government reach a firm conclusion. However, at this stage of the Bill we should know more about the Government's thinking on how they intend to determine the new points system.

Lord Bradshaw: I remind the Committee that I am a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. I have discussed with the officers concerned how a graduated system would be administered.
	Many motorists already contest the evidence produced of a speeding offence with a fixed penalty, whether detected by a speed camera, a mobile van or a traffic policeman. The more graduations you produce in the system the more correspondence you will get. People will argue that they were going a little slower in order to receive a lower penalty—obviously they will not argue that they should receive a higher one—and the police are already burdened with a huge amount of correspondence from motorists contesting the evidence produced.
	The police exercise discretion in making prosecutions—for example, people are not prosecuted for going past speed cameras at 31 miles an hour—but chief police officers obviously do not broadcast to everyone the kind of discretion allowed. But some discretion is exercised to allow for both the car speedometer being faulty and the camera equipment being faulty. People are not prosecuted for very minor offences.
	I draw attention to the huge number of people being prosecuted at the moment on the M4 motorway near Bristol, where three road workers have been killed and seven seriously injured because people are exceeding the 40 miles an hour limit by as much as 40 or 50 miles an hour. As the noble Baroness opposite said, speed kills—and it kills many people.
	We have to be mindful of that but we must not load more bureaucracy on the police. Bureaucracy keeps policemen in the police station answering letters when they should be out doing other jobs.
	From the figures published last week, I believe that the county of Hampshire, which has resisted very firmly a reduction in traffic policemen, has done rather better than a number of others. Many other police forces have cut the number of people out on the road considerably.
	As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, a roads policeman can exercise some discretion. He will know, for example, whether there is a school in the locality, whether it is a straight road in open country and good weather, whether it is an empty motorway at night. A speed camera, of course, cannot exercise discretion; it needs someone else.
	All films taken by cameras are passed through the eyes of someone, who refers them to a police officer if a very serious offence has been committed. Normally, a camera is able to verify if someone has grossly exceeded the speed limit, has overtaken on double white lines or indulged in dangerous driving, and the case is taken to court. But you will be opening a can of worms if you go down the road of variable penalties.

Lord Berkeley: My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 57 and 59, and I remind the Committee that I am president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. I believe that reducing the number of penalty points from a minimum of three to two for certain speeding offences is sending wholly the wrong message to drivers.
	Many noble Lords have talked about the relationship between the speed of vehicles and accidents, a subject which I expect will come back again many times today in the Committee. Government research shows that drivers are twice as likely to kill pedestrians or cyclists if they hit them at 35 mph instead of 30 mph. That, to me, is argument enough for not reducing from three to two the minimum points. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about complexity. Putting some of the limits up would be a good thing, but some pretty tight guidelines will have to be issued to reduce the amount of correspondence. Otherwise, as the noble Lord said, there will be a complete clog-up of correspondence. However, we must recall that speeding is treated more leniently than any other offence which involves killing or maiming. I do not know why that is, but the proposal would send completely the wrong message. I see it as mere pandering to the rather extreme end of the driving lobby who seem to want to go as fast as they like, and say that only they know what a safe speed is. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Howie of Troon: It is not actually speed that causes the problem; it is impact. What noble Lords need to bear in mind is that the impact is proportional to the square of the velocity. Therefore speed is a secondary matter. If speed is multiplied by two, impact is multiplied by four. Now that is good enough reason to listen to what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said.

Lord Berkeley: I am not sure whether my noble friend is reinforcing my argument.

Lord Howie of Troon: That was the idea.

Lord Berkeley: Then I am most grateful for that. I was getting just a bit muddled between his use of the words velocity and speed, since they are both the same thing when it comes to cars. My noble friend is quite right; and of course the mass and sharpness of the vehicle are factors as well. I am indeed grateful to him for his support.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I too am grateful that the point of detail has been cleared up to the satisfaction of the Committee. On the more general point, I may be a little disappointing in view of the trenchant points that have been made. My defence for that is that the Committee will have recognised quite a range of viewpoints being expressed in our debate. I hear the criticism about the proposal that the range should extend down to two. Of course, we are aware of those points being made in our consultation. I also note that there is considerable support in some quarters for the range being to six.
	The reason why I shall be disappointing is quite straightforward. The Bill creates an enabling framework for the secondary legislation through which this issue needs to be resolved. We are presently involved in a consultation. This short debate is a happy contribution to that consultation and reflects fairly accurately the widespread public views on these issues. Yet it is secondary legislation on which we will debate these issues, and that is the appropriate place for the points range to be identified. I am therefore loath to engage in the degree of detail to which I have been seductively invited by everyone contributing to this debate. Even if there had been an absolute, unanimous expression of viewpoints across the Committee on this controversial issue—a concept I can scarcely envisage—and had I been able to guarantee that all of us gathered here represented the totality of the House in that unanimity—I would still have maintained the point that I cannot accept the viewpoints and amendments today. That is because we are concerned here with primary legislation, which creates the framework in which this debate is subsequently to take place.
	The consultation goes on: this debate is part of it. The Committee will recognise that the Government would not have indicated their range for this purpose if they were not convinced of one position to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, drew attention. We are not convinced of the case for a single penalty point for speeding. In every circumstance that we can envisage, the offence is significant enough for us to think that one penalty point would never be appropriate.
	Of course, at this stage, I am not prepared to commit the Government to the range of views expressed beyond that.

Lord Hanningfield: This matter is going out to consultation. We do not have the secondary legislation so we have no idea of the timetable. Will it be a five-year consultation? What will the process be after the legislation has been completed?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise that we are involved in consultation at this time, which is consistent with the Bill and consonant with it. We are not seeking to delay with regard to this issue. We have helped to prompt a significant public debate, which has been reflected in the views of noble Lords across the Committee, including those expressed by my noble friend Lady Gibson on the important representation of RoSPA. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also speaks on behalf of interest groups outside the House that are concerned about road safety and he is therefore reflecting a substantial body of public opinion.
	We are involved in an important period of consultation on these issues with views coming from the well informed organisations that I mentioned and many others with a real interest in the appropriate points and punishments for speeding. However, at this stage, we are not including a definitive table in the Bill. That is the subject of consultation. It will be in the secondary legislation that will follow this Bill should it become an Act of Parliament.
	I merely reflect today that part of the process of consultation is to ensure that we have a full debate on all the issues involved. I can assure the noble Lord that we hope to get this Bill through both this House and the other place in the not-too-distant future. The secondary legislation will follow that.

Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, I take what he says about the detail being in secondary legislation. However, the Committee stage and subsequent stages of this Bill provide the only opportunity for noble Lords to question the framework within which the regulations will be published. The framework is what some of us do not like. The proposal is for the number of points to be reduced from a minimum of three to a minimum of two. If my noble friend would assure us and accept an amendment that substituted "3–6", many of us would be very happy. We would be happy that the regulations would be published and they would probably go through.

Lord Bradshaw: In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will the Minister reflect on the fact that it is normally for the courts to decide what the penalty should be on the basis of the offence. If the evidence is furnished to the court—it could be evidence of murder for that matter, we are not necessarily talking about road safety—it is not the place of secondary legislation to lay down what the penalty should be. It should provide penalties that the court may, taking into account the circumstances, inflict.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course, that is entirely right. I am not seeking to contradict that point. It is the responsibility of the courts to deal out the punishment related to the offence, but we are talking about the range within which the penalty points should be identified. I am merely indicating that we are consulting on it. I heard what my noble friend Lord Berkeley said. I could satisfy him by narrowing the range. I certainly would not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, by narrowing the range at this stage; he wants to extend it beyond that. I have just indicated the broad parameters in which the Government have conditioned the debate and our broad thinking. We are not seeking to take away from the courts their responsibility; we seek to indicate the contours of the public debate.
	Once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we will carry out the final consultation for three months and then seek to enact the consequent secondary legislation that will give definition to the issues. My noble friend Lord Berkeley had a good try at making me define things narrowly in the Bill, but I hope not to concede to that at this stage. I hope that the House will recognise that we have had a good debate and identified what is at stake. Everyone who is involved in the issues is well exercised about the consultation period. Everybody recognises that, in due course, secondary legislation will be proposed that will give this House and the other place a chance to take definitive decisions on such proposals.

Lord Howie of Troon: Could we think a little bit about secondary legislation? Secondary legislation is a well known hidey-hole for the Government. We debate things during the progress of the Bill, and then secondary legislation comes before us. We are very limited in what we can do with it. We can talk about it. I may be wrong, but I think that we can throw the legislation out—I am not sure whether that has ever happened—but we cannot amend it. Secondary legislation is, if one might put it this way, second-rate. Would it not be better to put such matters into primary legislation? I know that the Government often do that, because governments like to govern, but Parliament should have some say in how they govern.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course, Parliament must have a considerable say in holding the Government to account—that goes without saying. It is not a question of secondary legislation being a bolt-hole but a question of the different timescale. This is primary legislation. We would not expect another Act to take its place in a short time, but secondary legislation allows areas of flexibility on the issues, as public opinion changes. Such points of detail are in secondary legislation not because governments seek to evade their responsibilities but because there is a proper place for detail and a proper place for broad principle. The broad principle is at issue here.
	I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have exercised our minds considerably about the detail. There will be further opportunities for that to be considered at the appropriate time. I reassure my noble friend Lord Howie that the secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution.

Lord Howie of Troon: It makes no difference.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It will not go through without the approval of both Houses.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my two amendments in the group. There is no doubt that we shall come back to the matter at each stage of the Bill because we still want to tease out the Government's thinking on it. However, I have heard what the Minister said today and shall not move my two amendments.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his reply, particularly regarding the consultation that is taking place. If I was in the Government's position, I would not allow any graduated points system. It opens the courts up to more time spent on fighting the penalties. If someone is just on the cusp of a particular limit, he will take it to court and occupy court time. I mentioned that at Second Reading. I am not all that happy, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 58 to 61 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Speed assessment equipment detection devices]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 21, line 8, leave out "detection" and insert "jamming"

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 62, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 and 76.
	I helpfully tabled Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 to bring the Bill into line with what the Minister said at Second Reading. I am grateful for the helpful letter that the Minister sent to all Members of the Committee. It certainly clears up the point.
	My amendment would make it clear that a jamming device would be illegal, whereas a detector would not. The Committee may wonder why speed cameras are made highly visible. Surely, that is to act as a warning to an alert driver. A detector would only do the same thing. Cameras are supposed to be placed only at locations with a bad accident history. Therefore, why does the Minister want to stop an alert driver hearing a warning? It is surprising that the authorities do not place a decoy emitter to simulate a speed camera at high-risk locations.
	Amendment No. 76 would take that a bit further, as it provides for what I call an "electronic traffic sign", the definition of which is in subsection (6) of the amendment. It is a little radio transmitter whose output is modulated so that suitable equipment on the vehicle will readily reveal the prevailing speed limit. That is a prerequisite for adaptive speed control and could be useful at high-risk locations, such as outside schools.
	Many motorists find it extremely difficult to adhere precisely to a speed limit—especially at 30 miles an hour and even more so at 20 miles an hour. It is difficult, but if the speed limit is 20 miles an hour, it is usually very important that it is adhered to. Electronic traffic signs would make it much easier to comply with speed limits. I do not believe that in volume production, such devices would be expensive—certainly no more expensive than a free-standing conventional traffic sign.
	There are alternatives, such as GPS and even electronic maps showing where all the signs are. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will shortly speak to his amendment to ban equipment providing warning of the location of cameras. The amendment does not refer to GPS, but it does so implicitly. I cannot support the amendment as drafted, but it might be sound to allow a device that reveals the proximity of a camera if—and only if—it also gives an audio-visual warning that the speed limit is being exceeded.
	The topic is linked to Amendment No. 168, which was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and which the Committee will consider later. It covers vehicle data-recording devices and links into the issue of road-user charging, which is receiving much inaccurate and unhelpful comment from the media. We are near to providing assistance to motorists so that they can easily comply with speed limits.
	The Minister will resist my amendments, but there is a lot that we can do in this area. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 66, which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, kindly discussed very adequately, even though he does not support it. The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is the opposite of the amendments in this group standing in the noble Earl's name. Amendment No. 66 would prohibit people knowing where speed cameras were, on the basis that, if they do not know where they are, there may be some hope that they will keep to the speed limit at all times, rather than just when they know that they are approaching a camera.
	As the noble Earl said, GPS-based camera warning devices cannot detect when a camera is active, but they can detect camera sites. As the noble Earl also said, that technology is advancing fast. However, I do not think that it is right for drivers to obtain information about where speed cameras are—be they fixed, moving, or whatever type—as that would enable them when approaching a camera to jam on their brakes, as one often observes.
	Some noble Lord will probably say that such a device is dangerous as, if a driver jams on the brakes too suddenly, the car behind, which is also speeding, will run into them. I do not accept that. I believe that having the equipment that we are discussing constitutes an invitation to drivers to speed when they know that there is no camera. That is not the reason that we are here tonight; we are here to try to get people to limit their speed to the legal speed limit and thereby reduce accidents.

Lord Bradshaw: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I do not agree with the amendments in this group standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Speed camera boxes often do not contain speed cameras; in fact, few of them do. Speed cameras are expensive, whereas the boxes are relatively cheap. Therefore, it is something of a confidence trick.

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord says that the boxes do not carry cameras. Why not just put the decoy device in them?

Lord Bradshaw: The fact is that you need evidence. Cameras are moved around from place to place according to the severity of accidents and the number of people committing an offence. However, mobile devices are available, particularly mobile automatic number plate recognition devices. They do not catch many people who are speeding, but they catch many criminals, disqualified drivers, people who have skipped bail and people who are wanted for criminal offences.
	I hope that the Minister will cover a matter about which I am particularly concerned; that is, that no car should contain a device that tells the driver that a camera is active. It is one thing to have a map or a GPS system that indicates the site of a box—it was wrong to paint them yellow; the decision to do that was wrong—but there should not be a device in a car that tells you whether a camera is active. One of the groups of people who would make most use of that are not speeding motorists but the criminal fraternity in general, who would pick out any device that the police care to use to enforce the law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is right about the matter. I am interested not just in jamming but in the devices that I have seen that sit on the windscreen and give a little whizzing noise to indicate that there is an active camera in the area. I am particularly concerned about those.

Lord Monson: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right in saying that it is extremely difficult to drive at 30 miles an hour and even more so at 20 miles an hour. That is not the case in an older car, but, if I drive at 30 miles an hour in a modern turbo diesel car which pulls an extremely high top gear, I have to change down into fourth gear. If I drive at 20 miles an hour in such a car, I have to change down into third gear. It is extremely dangerous for drivers to have to take their eyes off the road constantly to monitor their speedometer. Any device at the roadside that shows a driver what speed he is travelling at must be beneficial to road safety.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I may have asked this question at Second Reading, but I do not think that I got an answer. Will any compensation be paid for devices that have been purchased legally but which will become illegal if this amendment is enacted? Secondly, will there be a scheme for recycling these devices, even if it is only recovering the components so that they can be reused elsewhere?

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 66 moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The Safer Streets Coalition also supports this amendment. It points out that the logic that argues for a ban on devices that can detect operational equipment also applies to GPS-based technology used to alert drivers to the location of safety cameras. In both cases, the devices encourage drivers to remain within the speed limit only where they know there is a risk of detection. That reduces speed limit compliance rates and increases the risk of crashes away from camera sites. If drivers stuck to the legal speed limit, they would not need equipment that detects speed cameras.

Viscount Simon: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, combined two things: an alert driver and a warning device. They are inconsistent: an alert driver would know that he was driving at the appropriate speed within the speed limit. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about having his eye on the speedometer all the time. If it takes a second to look at the speedometer, how long does it take to look at the rear vision mirror or the door mirror? I do not know. It is probably exactly the same amount of time. That argument falls.
	Regarding keeping to the 20 or 30 mph limit, there is a 20 mph limit in the City of London at the moment. There are cameras there, but they cannot be seen. They are a different type and are not painted yellow. They are SPECS. People are very careful, and everyone drives at 20 mph. The limit works very effectively. It is not impossible for people to drive in the appropriate gear for that speed.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned speed cameras being painted yellow. I agree with him on that aspect. I always thought that they should be painted blue: they would tend to blend in with the scenery and could not be seen at night.

Lord Howie of Troon: The other day, I was walking home from Golders Green Tube station towards my home in Temple Fortune Lane in NW11, which is known as a leafy suburb. I happened to see two new, yellow insignia indicating that cameras had been installed in my lane. It used to be a historic lane that at one time led from Jack Straw's Castle to the Bell in Hendon. Dick Turpin used to run down there—that was a while ago. I wondered why the yellow signs were there. They just appeared over the weekend.
	They were there because people are rampaging up and down my lane as though they were in the Indianapolis 500. They killed my cat—which was sad for the cat. Why were the cameras put there? They were put there because people were behaving badly. They come round a roundabout at the end of the road, and they have about a quarter of a mile to go until they reach Finchley Road where they can turn to go to Glasgow and other desirable places. It is a straight lane. They whiz along as though they are in a hurry to get to Glasgow. I understand that, but they cannot all be in a hurry to get to Glasgow. Why on earth should they not be stopped from misbehaving in my lane, where I have lived for 50 years? I cannot understand the fundamental selfishness of motorists who are—I shall not say, utterly—but, at least, partially, deplorable. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is, as always, absolutely right.

Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the Minister could help me, because I am not sure what is and what is not proposed to be legal. I should declare an interest, in so far as I have a little instrument in my car that goes "peep, peep, peep" when it approaches a camera. That is an enormous help. My reaction is that I not only slow down but then tend to stick to the speed limit. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that people do not do that—they slow down for the camera and put their foot down afterwards. It is true that that happens on occasion, but, in my experience, these instruments have greatly assisted people in keeping to the speed limit. I hope that the Minister will not say that such instruments will become illegal, because that would be a pity.
	The Government were right to paint the cameras yellow, because previously they were creepy-crawly and deceptive and were trying to catch people out. As the Minister said at the time, their purpose was to try to make people abide by the law, not to catch people. My understanding was that the devices in question would continue to be legal. I hope that they will—not just for selfish reasons, but because they help people keep within the law, rather than, only just, break it.
	There is often a camera placed at the bottom of a hill. If your car has cruise control and you keep to the limit, although you might have set your speed to 30 mph, you often find that by the time you reach the bottom you have increased to 35 or 40 mph and the camera catches you. That is matter of the placement of cameras. There is no question in my mind that camera detection devices help, because they treat people as reasonable individuals who can see a problem ahead.

Lord Berkeley: For the avoidance of doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is right to say that slowing down to obey the speed limit when people reach the camera is better than if they carried on at the same speed. That is 50 per cent better than not slowing down at all, but is not as good as keeping to the speed limit all the time, whether there is a camera there or not. That is what one should do to obey the speed limit law.

Lord Brett: My experience is different from that of the noble Earl. I travel on the A2 to Bexleyheath, on which there is a 50 mph limit. I switch on cruise control and travel all the way there, except that every time I approach a speed camera, I have to brake, because some people gallop to the speed camera at 60 mph, slam on their brakes, slow down to 40 mph at the point of passing the camera, and then accelerate again. In practice, there is no advantage to galloping between cameras. However, I have observed that the vast majority of people do that, particularly during the rush hour, rather than obeying the law, as the noble Earl does, with or without technical assistance.

Earl Attlee: The Committee should be aware that my argument is that we need to use more technology to improve compliance with the speed limits.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This has been a fascinating debate, which has led us through some technical areas, but some clear principles have been adumbrated. Although the amendments come from different perspectives, the objectives of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are somewhat different from those relating to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I wish to identify the principles that underpin the legislation and why, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments, even though they have different perspectives.
	First, the effect of the noble Earl's Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 65 to remove "detection" from the definition of speed assessment equipment detection devices and insert the word "jamming" would be to limit the range of the devices that the Bill would allow to be prohibited. It would reduce us to dealing with jamming devices. We do want to see such devices removed, because they directly interfere with the process of detection, and with the action of the police in seeking to identify someone potentially breaking the law. We are all agreed on that, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has taken us some way with him in that respect.
	As currently worded, however, the provisions within the Bill mean that it would be possible to prohibit a vehicle being fitted with speed assessment equipment detection devices that detect or interfere with the operation of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles, or to prohibit a person from using a vehicle carrying such a device. Jamming devices clearly interfere with the operation of speed enforcement equipment. That is in the Bill, and we do not need it reinforced any more. The amendments do not add significantly to that.
	Some people use jamming devices, although, mercifully, a relatively small number. The majority of speed assessment equipment detection devices in use, however, detect the presence of a speed camera or other police speed enforcement, and alert the driver—the device referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which gives him a helpful beep when it detects a speed camera. That device is not as benign as it may appear.
	This is where I will speak against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. We are not against people being aware of where safety cameras are placed. That is why, even at the end of a delightfully scenic lane, like the one in which my noble friend Lord Howie lives, we put a garish yellow device that is clearly marked, and everyone knows what it is. It is preceded by a warning a little further away, which says that safety cameras are in operation in this area, and that they will detect people who break the speed limit.
	We are not opposed to people knowing where these cameras are. Quite the opposite: we want people to know, because the cameras are telling them that they are moving from one level of road activity—where it is relatively safe, and higher speed limits are likely to pertain—to an area where it is necessary to have speed cameras to enforce a limit with some certainty and to condition drivers' activity.
	We have no objection to a positioning system working via satellite that informs a driver that they are moving into areas where safety cameras are placed. Why should we? I see that my noble friend Lord Berkeley is going to tell me why we should.

Lord Berkeley: My noble friend says that the cameras are there to warn people of a changing circumstance. That may be the case sometimes, but the cameras are often in a particular spot on the road that has the same speed limit for several miles.
	From what he is saying, it could be inferred that he is condoning people speeding until they reach the speed camera. I am sure that is not the case, but perhaps he can clarify that.

Earl Attlee: I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We could go down his route but say, "You can have a GPS device that tells you the speed limits and then activate it so that it could squeak like mad if you are exceeding the speed limit".

Lord Davies of Oldham: There is no limit to the possibilities of technology in informing drivers. I am chastened by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley—I did not want to indicate that all safety cameras fulfilled exactly that role. However, he will recognise that they are erected to enforce speed limits where there has been clear evidence that, for the sake of safety, they are necessary. Cameras are erected and clearly identified so as to enable proper and continual enforcement. We want people to know it.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Sitting here listening, I have learnt quite a bit about these little devices that go "bleep", such as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has in his car. However, I wonder whether the Government are verging on encouraging people to buy the little devices that go "bleep", so that they can use them in their cars and whether it is part of new government safety thinking.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I was coming to that. My noble friend has pre-empted the third part of my argument. I have indicated why I am not satisfied with the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which relate solely to jamming and therefore narrow the scope of the Bill in relation to such equipment. I have also dealt with the well intentioned attempt of my noble friend Lord Berkeley to produce an amendment that would reduce the level of information about where fixed safety cameras are placed. I believe that their known positioning is to the benefit of road safety. That is why we make them so prominent. Those are two cardinal reasons why I reject the amendments.
	I come to the third point, which my noble friend Lady Gibson raised. She asked whether, because we were in favour of devices that informed road users of the positioning of safety cameras, we were in favour of devices that go "bleep" whenever enforcement procedures are in place. They might not just go "bleep"; they might have a more sophisticated device that whispers in the ear all kinds of injunctions on how to tackle the problem. Whatever the device does, it is there to warn. We do not want those.
	Our provisions are intended to control areas of detection. Where police officers are engaged in necessary activity to restrain dangerous driving—that is, speeding—we do not want a situation in which people are warned that that activity is being conducted. It does not relate to the use of speed cameras, but the police have decided that action is necessary to improve road behaviour in a certain area. In that area, they move from place to place, aware that they have problems with accident rates or have been witnesses to excessive speeding, near escapes and all the issues that cause our heavily stretched police forces to set up cameras to guarantee that people respect speed limits.
	We accept the point on the GPS systems but reject my noble friend's idea that they should be available to drivers. However, we will not have available to people detection devices that tell them how police are operating in the area in which they are driving. That would interfere with the process of law enforcement, and it would do the very thing that my noble friend Lady Gibson was talking about. It is also the motive behind my noble friend Lord Berkeley's amendment.
	Are we creating a situation where people can drive with impunity at speeds beyond the limit because they have a device that tells them when they are likely to be caught? No, we seek to remove that, which is the basis of the legislation. That is why I want both groups of amendments to be rejected, while at the same time the Committee should recognise the principles on which the clause is founded.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Sometimes we are told that safety cameras are placed at accident black spots. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that it is a bad thing for people to know about the onset of an accident black spot. Is that not a counterbalance to the Minister's argument that drivers should not know that they are approaching an accident black spot?

Earl Attlee: Further to that point, I hope that the Minister can respond fully to Amendment No. 76, which was about the electronic traffic signs; I am not sure that he has covered that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The reason why I have not covered it is that various members of the Committee intercede as I am developing my argument, and I do not get that far. Now that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has resumed his seat, I can address myself to Amendment No. 76. Before I do so, I am reminded by the other interjection that I have not replied to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He wanted to know whether we would be able to recycle the devices that we extract from the cars. So far as we are aware, it will not be possible to recycle those devices for other purposes, so we have a straight loss with regard to that factor. However, we regard the gains from road safety as being such that that loss may need to be sustained.
	It may still be possible to use a device that has both the GPS and the detector, if the detector can be put out of use and the GPS part of the system can continue, so the impact may not be quite so drastic. That would depend on the technology of the device in question. I hope that the noble Earl will not press me too much further on technology; I am fast getting out of my depth.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Will the Minister tell us whether any compensation will be paid, which was the other half of my question?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are not contemplating compensation. Individuals may purchase equipment that subsequently contravenes the law—one may purchase a tyre with an original specification that is within the law and we then change the law on tyres and it no longer is. That is the rub of the green with the law, so we cannot have a vast compensation scheme from government for those who have been technically equipped.
	The devices are purchased by members of the Committee and by many other good people with the sole intention of making them better drivers. One or two of our fellow citizens may buy such devices to detect where law enforcement goes on in order to be poorer drivers and drive with impunity the rest of the time.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Can we go back to the equipment referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers? That equipment would detect a mobile police camera. Is my noble friend saying that that equipment would no longer be permissible?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes. I do not know the nature of the device. If the device is solely related to the information on the positioning of permanent safety cameras, and the GPS system in those terms, it is entirely benign. My noble friend Lord Berkeley wanted that removed from the Bill, but we do not intend to do that. It is a benign form of information that gives everyone information that we want communicated. Devices that send out impulses and detect other forms of police enforcement cameras are our target.
	I am not sufficiently acquainted with the car driven by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In any case, we are talking about the principle. The noble Earl was indicating that the device was extremely helpful to him in staying within the law and recognising where the safety cameras were positioned. I was commending him on that.

Earl Ferrers: I am deeply grateful to the Minister for commending me on anything at all; I merely purchased something that was available.
	The only thing that worried me was that he said that I might have an instrument in my car that goes "beep"; he then said, "We are all against that". This thing goes "beep, beep, beep, beep, beep", and it drives me mad. Once past the yellow camera, it starts up again because there is another one, but it tells you where the things are. The result is that you get so windy that you stick to the limit as far as you can. I hope I am right in believing that that is not going to be removed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, I sought to identify it as a benign device, even if it beeped many times. It gives effective and helpful information to the driver. The noble Earl is the beneficiary of that, which is why I was resisting my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I press further: what my noble friend is saying is that, if the information is GPS-based, it is permissible, and, if it is other than that, it is not permissible. There are hundreds—indeed, thousands—of shops throughout the country selling equipment that, if I understand my noble friend's case correctly, would become illegal. Are those stores aware that that market will have to dry up?

Lord Davies of Oldham: In due course. We must be specific about the nature of the equipment. We are not at that stage on the detail yet. We are establishing the general principles of a Bill with which we promote safety and good conduct on our roads. All that I was saying is that the GPS system—I used it as an illustration—was communicating helpful information to the driver to ensure that he learnt early what we all learn with sudden effect when we see the clearly marked cameras with their great yellow boxes and the indication of the limits that they would impose by camera devices.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would increase the intensity with which we are committed to deal with jamming. I have insisted that the clause already adequately deals with jamming. I was going on to say that the devices that would become illegal were those that tell the driver where mobile enforcement devices—or speed enforcement devices; they need not be cameras, but frequently they are, as they are the best form of evidence of an offence— are being used by the police to catch and deal with motorists who break the law on speeding.
	Now I might arrive at Amendment No. 76, which is the last one—no, I am not going to reach Amendment No. 76 ever today.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The Minister just made a point about general principles, which is what I should like to ask him about. Both today and on the previous day when we debated this subject, he constantly mentioned safety cameras as opposed to speed cameras. I have regularly heard him say that they are not speed cameras, they are safety cameras. After he said that last time, I went to Notting Hill Gate to read the notice again. It clearly states:
	"Speed cameras are operating in this area".
	I have seen that in many places. Will all those signs be changed to read "safety cameras"? What is the position, the general principle, about speed cameras or safety cameras? Is one an outmoded title?

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is not a question of their nomenclature, it is a question of their purpose. They are safety cameras because it is announced to everyone just where they are. They are prominently displayed and the motorist knows exactly the device that may come into play to take the appropriate photograph if he breaks the speed limit in that area. That is a safety programme. It is nationwide; it is even found in the road of my noble friend Lord Howie. As I said, we are not against everyone knowing exactly where those cameras are placed, because they are part of the essential guarantees that our roads will be safer, because people will obey the speed limits in such areas.
	However, there are other occasions when the police need to enforce the law. It cannot all be policed through permanent, fixed safety cameras. I have told the Committee that we intend to remove the devices that identify police activity in the area.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 76. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has an interesting concept here: why should not speed limit traffic signs be electronic, because they would send out signals to individuals and give that additional helpful information immediately to the car driver that he may not have witnessed with his own eyes? I must say that car drivers who miss speed limit signs and say, "I did not see them" are not the safest people on the roads; that is why they are frequently prosecuted. But I understand what the noble Earl suggests, that that could be an additional form of safety.
	He will know that we have a very large number of speed limit signs. I gulp as I say this but there are more than 300,000. I do not have a figure at the moment for the cost of each individual electronic device, but the Committee will recognise that would involve substantial expenditure for communicating information that, if the driver does not see with his own eyes, he is not driving with the care that he ought.
	I understand the motivation behind the amendment, and, in due course, we may reach the stage where such an electronic device becomes required because of the nature of road traffic in this country. We just do not think that the cost is justified at present.
	On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will withdrawn his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am finding the debate extremely useful. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the Government's thinking on the issue. At Second Reading, he was confident that the Bill did not ban detectors; now he is confident that it does, but that that is appropriate.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that an alert driver would not speed. I disagree. If he speeds and is not alert, he is a real danger to himself and other road users. When the noble Viscount does his commentary drive with the police, he will have to point out a change in road surface—he must be that alert and observant. The real danger is a speeding driver who is not alert—not sufficiently alert to notice a speed camera.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about compensation. Absolutely not. Those devices have always been questionable and on borrowed time. I hope that the Minister does not consider any compensation schemes for them.
	I am not overly worried about the banning of detection devices. I am really interested in an electronic solution to help motorists comply with the speed limit and drive safely. The Minister himself said that there was no limit to what technology could do.
	My last response is to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He and I may join forces and meet in the middle, perhaps by proposing at a later stage that we can allow GPS devices that squeak if you are exceeding the speed limit for the area but ban GPS devices that tell you where the camera is. We want people to adhere to the speed limit as soon as they enter the zone.
	I am grateful for all contributions to the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 67:
	After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
	"DEFAULT SPEED LIMIT
	(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 81 (general speed limit for restricted roads), for subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 20 mile per hour."".

The Earl of Dundee: This amendment would introduce a default 20 mile per hour limit in urban areas. Twenty mile per hour zones have been shown to be remarkably effective ways to reduce road deaths and injuries in urban areas, especially among children. They may also help to improve the quality of urban environments. In Hull and elsewhere, properly enforced 20 mile per hour speed limits have demonstrated a reduction in casualties by up to 70 per cent among child pedestrians and up to 60 per cent among other vulnerable road users.
	Some people have argued for a 20 mile per hour limit outside all schools. Although that would be beneficial, the school journey accounts for less than 20 per cent of child casualties. Children are also at risk where they live and play, and reducing speeds throughout residential areas would greatly increase child safety. A recent study by the Health Development Agency found that the expansion of 20 mile per hour zones to all residential areas could prevent 13,000 child pedestrian deaths and injuries—equivalent to two-thirds of the total.
	Instituting a default 20 mile per hour limit in urban areas would make 20 miles per hour the norm. However, local authorities would be free to set higher speed limits on suitable roads. Several local authorities, including Southwark and Camden, are already adopting that approach. To extend it nationally would save a great many more lives. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: My name is attached to the amendment and I must say that the noble Earl has said exactly what I was going to say.

Earl Attlee: I fear that I cannot support my noble friend, for the reasons that I am confident the Minister will give us.

Lord Berkeley: I am not sure that I can match those last two short contributions, but I will do my best. My name is attached to the amendment and to Amendment No. 83A. We need to recognise something about a proposal as emotive as a 20 mile an hour speed limit in urban areas. Government figures indicate that the current rate of deaths for pedestrians and cyclists per distance unit of exposures are respectively somewhere between 17 and 19 times those of car occupants. In other words, if you are on the road cycling or a pedestrian on the pavement, your risk of being killed is 17 to 19 times higher than in a car.
	We need to reflect on what the roads and pavements are there for, because that does not represent a socially desirable balance between mobility and safety. It affects people's decision whether to walk or cycle rather than go by car. From the point of view of fitness, pollution and everything else, it is much better to walk or cycle, but if that clearly greater risk is reflected in the fear factor—that people do not walk or cycle because they are frightened—that is undesirable.
	For most roads covered by the amendment—as the noble Earl said, local authorities do not have to designate all their roads to by 20 mile per hour zones; they can sometimes be 30—that would send absolutely the right signal to car users, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, that that is a reasonable speed to which to limit yourself. It is sad that there is such a scarcity of these zones. They probably occur only when there is tremendous pressure from pedestrians, cyclists or environmental groups. These will most likely arise in the kind of suburb to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, was referring rather than in places where they are equally—or more—desirable.
	These amendments, or something like them, would send the right signals to local authorities and others, to consider 20 mph speed limits on the less well-used roads in urban and semi-urban areas. It would help people to reclaim the streets and use them for other things besides driving and make a major contribution to road accident reduction as well.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wonder whether I am the only noble Lord present who does not know the precise definition of a restricted road. Based on experience in my home in Clackmannanshire, I notice that there are a lot of signs which tell me that "20 is plenty". They tend to be in the housing schemes, at the Braes of Tullibody for example, or else they are around the primary schools such as in Clackmannan and are indeed backed up by speed bumps. That strikes me as a good idea.
	I get the impression from the debate on this amendment however that those "20 is plenty" signs are not actually legal at present and are only advisory. It would be helpful if that could be clarified.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not in favour of this amendment. If there is a need for a reduced speed limit for any reason, then yes, you should be able to put a sign saying, "20". But to have it as the default is making it far too extensive. It would be better if we could teach children to cross at the correct crossing—we used to have the very good green cross code that taught children that. Outside the schools there is nothing better than the lights which can be turned on at the hours the children are leaving rather than having traffic restricted all day when no child is coming out of the school, because then it discredits the sign and people will drive through without thinking that this is a moment when a child might be coming out.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is an enthusiastic cyclist, but the way I see them coming up on the inside of the car when I am driving and crossing the traffic lights while the lights are still against them when I am on a bus, I am surprised that many more of them are not killed. Cyclists seem to be a law unto themselves and I would not want this restriction imposed upon everyone else on their behalf.

Lord Hanningfield: From the Conservative Front Bench I would like to say that we do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; we do support the idea of a 20 mph speed limit when appropriate, but not a general blanket 20 mph approach. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, and it is certainly the case in my own county, if one drove all the time at 20 mph one would often be overtaken by cyclists. Cyclists often easily go over 20 mph—particularly in Essex. We do not support this amendment.

Baroness Crawley: We have had a variety of views in our relatively short debate this afternoon. The Government's road safety strategy recognises the problems in urban areas where speed is a contributory factor in many accidents and injuries, especially to more vulnerable road users. We take very seriously the concerns expressed in these amendments.
	The strategy therefore encourages the implementation of 20 mph speed limits and zones in the right situation, and has also made a commitment to develop and test practical solutions to improve the safety of main roads through urban areas, which often carry high volumes of traffic but also support high levels of pedestrian and cycle activity. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, a restricted road is an urban street lit road.
	There are 10 mixed priority route demonstration projects under way looking at exactly how this situation can be improved. I would be very happy to speak with noble Lords about where the demonstration projects are around the country. I hope to persuade noble Lords that these amendments are therefore unnecessary.
	In relation to Amendment No. 67 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and my noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Berkeley, and proposed subsection (2) of Amendment No. 83A tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, Section 81(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already provides a general power for the Secretary of State to increase or reduce the maximum speed limit on restricted roads by way of order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Furthermore, traffic authorities already have the powers to set a local speed limit through traffic order under Sections 82 to 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 where it is appropriate to adopt a speed limit other than 30 mph for restricted roads. Through the Road Traffic Regulation Act traffic authorities also have the powers to introduce a speed limit of 20 mph without obtaining consent from the Secretary of State.
	The purpose of proposed subsection (1) of Amendment No. 83A is to reduce the maximum speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on single carriageway restricted roads (urban street lit roads) without a centre white line.
	The department has no record of how many restricted roads do not have centre white lines so is unable to judge the immediate effect this amendment would have on speed limits. However restricted roads that vary in width may have centre white lines that are interrupted by intervals where there are none because of the different widths. The speed limit would fluctuate between 20 mph and 30 mph. This would be impractical and as such may not have the full support of drivers, making enforcement difficult.
	The removal of centre white lines to make the road 20 mph would have the effect of substantially increasing speed limit signing. This may be an unwelcome financial burden on local authorities who may prefer to use this money to introduce proven traffic calming measures at sites where there is a history of speed related accidents.
	As I have already said the Government encourage the implementation of 20 mph speed limits. Research has shown that 20 mph limits and zones can reduce the number of accidents by two-thirds. However, it has also confirmed that 20 mph speed limits should generally be self-enforcing and that reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph with no accompanying traffic calming features only reduces vehicle speeds by around 1 mph. The department therefore recommends that 20 mph speed limits are introduced only on those roads where vehicle speeds are already low, or where additional traffic calming measures are planned as part of the strategy. The existing restricted road network would clearly not fall into this category.
	There are also problems in that not all safety cameras—or, thinking back to the last debate, speed cameras—are type approved for use at 20 mph. The GATSO camera that currently appears on many restricted roads is for example only type approved for 30 mph and above. Traffic authorities determine local speed limits having regard to guidance issued by the department. We have recently consulted on updated guidance designed to improve clarity and deliver greater consistency of local speed limits across the country. I believe that that is the aim of the noble Earl's amendment.
	The traffic guidance also seeks to incorporate important wider factors such as quality of life through, for example, striking a better, more sensible balance between road safety, accessibility and environmental objectives, and taking better account of the needs of more vulnerable road users. It is a fundamental part of that guidance and the local speed limit process that traffic authorities give full and proper consideration to what is the right speed limit for individual roads, based on local needs and requirements and taking into account their wider management responsibilities. As well as improving safety, that also increases respect for, and compliance with, speed limits. As we know, if people see that there is a sensible and considered logic behind the imposition of speed limits on certain roads, they will be more likely to comply.
	Through our wide-ranging Road Safety Strategy, we are improving the position of the most vulnerable road users. The number of child casualties, as pedestrians, cyclists and car passengers, has been reduced significantly, as has the number of adult pedestrian and cyclist casualties. I hope that, in view of that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: Further to the Minister's response to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on what constitutes a "restricted road", perhaps I might have the temerity to refer her to Section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. It says that,
	"a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act if there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart".
	There is nothing about such roads being in an urban area. That is extremely important for rural areas and villages because a village road with street lamps is automatically a restricted road and therefore subject to a 30 mph speed limit.

Baroness Crawley: I accept the noble Earl's point. I simply reiterate the reference to single carriageway restricted roads, urban street lit roads and those with centre white lines. The "urban lit road" here refers to the single carriageway restricted road.

The Earl of Dundee: I thank the Minister for her clear recognition of the fact that 20 mph zones have already proved their worth. Those zones have also saved many lives. On the other hand, a default speed limit still gives local authorities flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, emphasised. Local authorities are free to set higher limits as relevant. However, here I also take the point of my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Hanningfield. Certainly, we do not want the default system to impose limits unnecessarily—establishing 20 mph zones where they are not required—and we do not want them to impose some practice throughout the day if that might be relevant for only part of the day. A default speed limit, if we were to deploy it, could possibly too restrictive a means, in which case we should not deploy it.
	Yet my purpose in tabling the amendment was to recommend some form of balanced approach to the problem, of which a default system might be one of many. As such, I continue to recommend it, along with its alternatives, to the Minister for further consideration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 [Exemptions from speed limits]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 22, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
	"(a) it is being used for operational fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any operational function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for operational ambulance purposes or for operational police or operational Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,"

Earl Attlee: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 and 81. The Committee will be aware of public and media concern regarding speeding and fatal accidents involving police vehicles. For instance, last Monday the Daily Express pointed out that:
	"Home Office figures showed that the number of people killed annually in accidents involving police patrol cars had risen 60 per cent to 31".
	That is approaching one per cent of all fatalities. I am grateful for the Minister's recent letter regarding one particular incident. The Committee would be wise to treat that matter as sub judice for the time being.
	I do not believe in regulation unless it is absolutely necessary. However, I suspect that the Committee will be extremely disappointed that a few police officers are severely damaging the police's reputation. I urge the Minister to draw to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers and chief constables themselves the pretty tough amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I have tabled. If they do not get their act together, Parliament will give them some pretty tough regulation. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 71 and 81. Although I support the general tone of the noble Earl's amendments, I am afraid that I feel it necessary to probe a little further, probably so far as to make it very difficult for some emergency services to operate. However, my amendment, which goes further than that of the noble Earl, Attlee, reflects my concern about the situation with the police. I do not refer to the fire or ambulance services but police car activities are getting out of hand.
	The press reported a couple of weeks ago on a Written Answer in the House of Commons, on 20 June, that gave the latest figures for fatal, serious and other injuries caused by road traffic collisions, involving all the police forces in England and Wales. In 2003–04 the figure had increased significantly from 1,259 in the previous year to 2,000. As I said at Second Reading, there is an extraordinary variation in the accident rate between police forces. That indicates that the national training scheme for drivers, which I believe now works quite well, is not working as well as it should.
	Amendment No. 71 would provide that police cars should obey speed limits unless responding to an emergency. I received a very interesting Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. It says:
	"The police can only claim exemption from speed limits in restricted circumstances which are defined by statute".
	It says that they can exceed the speed limit,
	"but only if the observance of the limit would hinder the vehicle in its purpose".—[Official Report, 14/6/05; WA 115.]
	We must consider what the purpose is.
	There have been examples of senior police officers driving at ridiculous speeds being caught by their own black boxes. We talked about that at Second Reading, so I shall not repeat it.
	As you go about the City of London, the West End, or other towns, you wonder how many of the police cars actually need to have their blue lights flashing and their horns bleeping. I have not had any satisfactory answer to that, so it would send the right signals to the police force if they were more restricted than at present.
	It may be that—though it is not in my amendment because I did not have time to change it, but it provides the basis for discussion—were all police cars fitted with black boxes, as many are at the moment, it would be possible for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to produce an annual report on the number of times these cars had exceeded the speed limit, and to ask the forces to justify them. Perhaps something like that would send the right message to the police force. It may be fine to get to an incident as quickly as possible, but if they are going to put other people or themselves at risk to the tune of the accidents which came out in this Written Answer, then something needs to be done. It is unsatisfactory.
	The first part of Amendment No. 81 is the same as the amendment relating to the speed limit, suggesting that it would do no harm for police cars to obey traffic lights as well. Going through red lights at high speed can cause serious accidents, be they with pedestrians, cycles or other cars. Do they need to do that all the time?
	I welcome the fact that the Royal Parks Police are being integrated with the Metropolitan Police, but it is time they stopped driving down the footpaths in Hyde Park just to get to their station in the middle of the park a bit more quickly—I assume to have tea or something. I cycle through the park regularly, and have seen them going at a speed which requires pedestrians to take avoiding action. They have not got their blue lights flashing. Why do they have to do it at all? We have 500 police officers who use bicycles, and that is fantastic. I do not think the motorcycle police or the police cars need to drive down the footpaths and cycle ways as they do in the Royal Parks for no particular reason.
	The other two parts of this amendment suggest that there needs to be some recording of speeding and other non-compliance with traffic regulations by police cars. A check—I have said by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, but I think it should be the Independent Police Complaints Commission—would send the right signal that the public have had enough of speeding police cars. Of course there are emergencies when they have to speed, but the issue is the frequency with which they do so. I have talked to a number of policeman who say they can disobey the speed limits, red lights or any other traffic sign if it is in the course of their business—which includes going to work and, presumably, going to and from lunch. That is unacceptable.
	I do not think I have the right wording yet in this amendment, but I hope it will provoke discussion, and a reaction from the Minister.

Lord Monson: I support the broad thrust of these amendments. Your Lordships will have read in the past few weeks of a case in the West Midlands—Shropshire, I think—where police cars were being tested at up to 83 miles per hour in urban areas and well over 120 miles per hour on the open road, in the small hours of the morning. I am not too concerned about what happens on the open road because there will be little traffic on the motorways at that time, but urban areas are different. It might not have been so bad a few years ago, when 99.9 per cent of the population was safely tucked up in bed at three or four in the morning. However, now the Government have, in their wisdom, permitted pubs and clubs to remain open 24 hours a day under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, it is a very different matter. You have a lethal combination of speeding police cars and drunken pedestrians.
	I tabled a Question for Written Answer on this subject a couple of weeks ago and do not want to pre-empt the Answer, which I have yet to receive, but it is a dangerous state of affairs. It would be interesting to discuss the issue this afternoon.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: On the issue of police cars going so fast, the daughter of one of our local general practitioners in North Yorkshire was a student at Oxford University. Last year she was killed on a zebra crossing in Oxford, by a police car which was responding to a 999 call—which could have been a hoax, though I am not sure. That was a tragedy. The funeral, held in Ripon Cathedral, was packed by people worried about the police driving so fast through lights and zebra crossings. The police are getting a bad reputation.

Lord Bradshaw: I must intervene on that last point because the accident to which the noble Baroness referred was at 2 am in the morning on the Cowley Road. The police car was responding to an armed robbery. The police have strict rules or performance targets about responding to 999 calls. They are one of the key performance indicators—much derided by some people—that the Government set police forces. Responding to 999 calls and then attending the site quickly is one of the main things impressed on them.
	I will not take part in the whole debate about police forces, but be careful that we are not conflating one thing with another.

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, makes an extremely important point, but my amendment seeks to separate the operational purposes that he talks about from other matters such as being late for a meeting.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for making that point, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We all sympathise enormously with the family that sustained the loss of the young woman in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the police on that occasion were working on the operational matter of a 999 call. I hear what the noble Lord says about important targets, but let us substitute for targets the necessity of protecting the public. That is the job of the police. We expect them to respond in an emergency. When the consequence is as calamitous and disastrous as the one described by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, then we all have the utmost sympathy, but we could not possibly envisage introducing into legislation a constraint on the police in these terms.
	Officers of the emergency services, whether police, ambulance, fire or the Serious Organised Crime Agency—a new body established, as the House will recall, in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005—have the right to be exempted from speed limits and traffic controls. They are specially trained to do this job and to meet these requirements. It is a recognition that we cannot have the concept of emergency calls unless we have these vehicles responding in a way which inevitably means that some risks have to be taken in regard to normal traffic laws and obligations. You cannot have a 999 call where the police respond at 20 miles an hour in a very restricted area or at 30 miles an hour in an area restricted to that speed.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley is keen to emphasise with his amendments—this is, of course, also the burden of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—that we should ensure that there are procedures in place which guarantee, first, that these vehicles are driven outwith the law only in emergencies; and, secondly, that there is proper recognition of the seriousness of such an activity and that it is recorded. I can assure the Committee that such incidents are recorded and logged. It is not done by way of an annual report, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Berkeley—that would be superfluous—but they have to be logged and recorded.
	Of course, if a calamitous accident occurs, it is quite possible that the officers concerned can be properly charged with driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. It is likely, of course, that the officers will be able to erect the defence that they were authorised to meet an emergency call, but if it was for something as trivial as being late for a luncheon engagement, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested, that would not be a defence.
	Nor would it meet the requirements of the supervising officers charged with the responsibility for ensuring that these vehicles are used only for operational purposes. They can break speed limits and other aspects of the law—go across red lights and so on— because they are responding to an emergency. It is therefore to the greater good because they are reacting to a situation where as fast a reaction as possible is needed.
	I understand that the amendments have been tabled to give an airing to public anxiety and disquiet about cases where people are injured and killed in accidents involving emergency vehicles. We cannot go through a year without every aspect of the emergency services being involved in some kind of tragedy associated with one of these activities. It is in the nature of the dangerous deployments required in response to emergencies.
	I could take the amendments apart on the basis of certain defective qualities in their wording but my noble friend Lord Berkeley, in particular, would not thank me for doing so. He often tables amendments in order that we should understand the nature of the issues rather than that they should be brought immediately into legislation. I am not going into the defective nature of the amendments.
	I want my noble friend and the Committee to accept that the procedures which he identifies and requires are already in force for these officers. I do not doubt that a debate such as this has the salutary effect of articulating the public anxiety that the exemptions to the law that we give can sometimes result in tragedy. But all those who operate under these exemptions from the law—however skilled they are as drivers and however high their level of training—still have a massive obligation to guarantee as far as possible that such activity is for the good and security of the public, and to ensure that there is not a threat to the public which the careless use of these exemptions would occasion. I can give my noble friend that assurance.
	I have heard what my noble friend said about the Royal Parks but, from time to time, police cars need to cross the Royal Parks in the way he outlined. Again he has taken the opportunity to air a grievance.
	I hope that I can leave it at that and that the noble Earl will withdraw this amendment and not move his other amendments, and that my noble friend Lord Berkeley will not move his amendments.

Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, does he agree that testing a new police car does not constitute responding to an emergency and, therefore, testing such cars at double or treble the speed limit—no matter that it be in the small hours of the morning—is very definitely to be discouraged and is almost certainly illegal?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Drivers have to be trained— and there will of course be circumstances in which they can be trained—to handle these vehicles at high speed. I do not want to comment on any particular case the noble Lord may have in mind because I understand it is sub judice.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. Does he agree that Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides that the speed limits do not apply to motor vehicles being used for police purposes? What is a police purpose? Going to a meeting is clearly a police purpose, but the officers attending jolly well should not be speeding. The problem is that the provision is very widely drawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what my noble friend says. I want to emphasise to him that the responsible operation of these exemptions for police officers is related to purposeful activity for the benefit of the public.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, especially the Minister. It is important to note that my amendments would not affect emergency calls. They seek to separate emergencies from training.
	I am not keen on returning to this issue but, if we carry on like this, we run the risk of a very serious accident involving multiple casualties and not only a terrible tragedy involving one person. What would happen if a police car ran into a bus queue? That would leave the Minister with all kinds of difficulties to deal with.
	As I say, I am not keen on returning to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 74:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"MOTORWAYS: MAXIMUM SPEED
	The maximum speed on a motorway shall be 80 mph and in other circumstances shall be determined by highway controllers and the police with access to the motorway warning signs system."

Lord Hanningfield: Contrary to most of the discussion we have had on the Bill today, the amendment suggests the raising of the speed limit in certain circumstances. It seeks to introduce the concept of variable speed limits in response to weather conditions on motorways while raising the maximum speed limit to 80 miles per hour, thereby ensuring the most expeditious, effective and efficient use of our motorway network.
	I am aware that there are many statistics—a number have been bandied around—that oppose the raising of speed limits. No doubt powerful and convincing material can be brought to bear on both sides of the argument. The aim of the amendment is to achieve a simple and straightforward system of speed limits. We shall come to a number of other amendments on speed limits later, I notice.
	The amendment should not be branded as a cavalier approach to road safety when it is quite the opposite. Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, has argued that there should be a review of speed limits and that travelling at 80 miles per hour in a modern car, on a good road surface and at a proper distance from the car in front, is perfectly safe.
	We all believe that low speed limits need to be imposed where vulnerable pedestrians are concentrated—for example, close to schools and so on. We had an endless, very important debate about this earlier. It is sensible to keep the maximum speed limit on a motorway down to, say, 50 miles per hour in bad weather, when rain and ice increase braking distances. That is very effective now.
	The limit of 70 miles per hour on motorways was introduced at a time when most vehicles had drum brakes and there was an oil crisis. Since then, braking, steering and suspension systems have developed substantially, allowing drivers to brake more rapidly, safely and effectively. Technological advances mean that motorists can obviously travel more safely at higher speeds. Increased engine and aerodynamic efficiency, higher gearing and modern tyre technology also allow higher speeds. New developments in car technology allow the average motorist consistently to deploy full stopping abilities while retaining control and steering.
	Concerns have been raised about the environmental impact of raising speed limits. The increased emissions resulting from such a small change are not likely to be significant and, as we know, progress continues to be made with new cars to reduce dramatically the amount of toxic pollutants released in emission gases. As we said at Second Reading, traffic contributes only one- quarter of airborne particulates—most of which are produced by large diesel engines in buses and heavy goods vehicles, which would not be affected by the change in speed limit. For example, a bus emits 120 times as much particulate as a car. The Association of British Drivers has shown that an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour would save approximately 11 million vehicle hours per year for cars, and 1.5 million hours for light goods vehicles. It would be a good way of reducing some congestion on our roads.
	The notion of variable speed limits on our motorways is not new, and has been used in the past on particular stretches of road such as the M25 due to poor weather conditions or weight of traffic. In fact, we would be lucky to go at 20 miles per hour most of the time on the M25, as we all know. While the Department for Transport has said that the idea had previously been rejected on road safety grounds, it has also made clear that it would be kept under review. It has been pointed out in another place that an estimated 19 per cent of those who travel on motorways already do so at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour, while perhaps 50 per cent exceed 70 miles per hour. The law must be enforced, as we have said several times today, but it must also enjoy public support. It is a question of achieving the balance.
	Rather than holding on to the existing 70 miles per hour limit on motorways—which so many see as arbitrary and not worthy of attention—we should set realistic limits on all roads. That obviously means at times reducing the current limits, thus achieving compliance with limits that genuinely matter. This amendment will allow us to stop criminalising drivers who travel on our motorways at safe speeds.

The Earl of Dundee: I believe that the effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to increase the frequency and severity of collisions. Not least are two particular aspects of concern. First, there is the differential between 80 and 90 miles per hour. If the motorway speed limit became 80 miles per hour, then motorists would tend to exceed it towards 90 miles per hour. Secondly, there are the relative speed limits between heavy goods vehicles and other vehicles. To increase this difference would add to the current danger of our motorways. Just now, the difference is between 56 miles per hour for heavy goods vehicles and 70 miles per hour for others. The current amendment, if adopted, would thus cause this difference to widen between 56 and 80 miles per hour respectively.

Lord Cobbold: I strongly support this amendment. It seems to me to be a matter of common sense, and puts a little faith in the good sense of British motorists. That is long overdue as they are so often much maligned.

Earl Attlee: I agree with where my noble friend is coming from. The fact is that the police accept 80 miles per hour in good conditions, yet they have the ability to prosecute on the absolute offence of 70 miles per hour if they detect a motorist driving at 80 in bad conditions. That is the reality, but of course it is also an uncertainty.
	It would be better to follow the good example of the variable speed limits on the M25. I would not have an upper legal speed limit, but would use variable speed limits on all motorways. It would make for more comfortable motoring, and probably reduce congestion by eliminating problems like bunching—because it might be appropriate, for reasons of congestion, to stick to a constant 50 miles per hour. But then, the speed limits which are shown as variable should be strictly enforced. At the moment, we have an uncertain situation. Is it legal to go at 80 miles per hour on the motorway, or not? It is not legal, but the police tolerate it. To an extent, the principle is linked with my amendment about the electronic speed limits. It is a similar issue.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This proposal is, no doubt, quite tempting. Superficially, it could certainly be popular. There is a certain mantra which goes with it, about modern vehicles clearly being capable of going at 80 miles per hour. Many people already drive at 80 miles per hour—certainly, at least, on the relatively empty motorways in Scotland—and it would reduce bunching.
	I am, however, certainly opposing this amendment, on grounds which may indeed be boring; grounds like fuel economy, given the fact that vehicles are rarely fuel-efficient above 2,500 revs. I accept that there are now expensive cars geared to produce 2,500 revs at 70, but not usually at 80, except for the very expensive cars. It depends ultimately on the drive ratio which is fitted. Then there is the air pollution issue. Vehicles going above 2,500 revs will be producing more harmful gases. We are against that. Finally, there is the rising collision damage which comes from a large number of vehicles driving at that speed. So, the amendment may be good retail politics, but it is unsound.

Viscount Simon: The variable speed limits have a lot to recommend them in controlling traffic flow, etc, and that is very good. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, mentioned distances between cars. How many people know the correct distance between them and the car ahead at a certain speed? Not many—and not many can actually judge it. An experiment has concluded that that is correct; they do not know what the correct distance is.
	Although I understand what the noble Lord said, it would not work in practice. Not only that, but the noble Lord stated in great detail the advances in vehicle design, braking, etc. Yet he has not told us how the human body has evolved. The frontal lobes of our brains would still hit the front bones of our heads at the same speed as they did 200 years ago when we are involved in a crash, although we would not have had a crash at that speed on a motorway 200 years ago. Yet the psychology of the modern human is also unchanged. Those two things go against 80 miles per hour, but I do agree with the noble Lord's variable speed limits. Finally, the noble Lord quoted the Association of British Drivers. That is a very vocal body, with a membership of less than 3,000.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would like to support the amendment, though I would also like to ask a couple of questions in view of what other speakers have said. My noble friend Lord Attlee said that we can do 80 miles per hour. Now, I very conscientiously watch that I never go above 70. I find it quite terrifying that someone always sits right on my back bumper bar, and in a terrible position. I am always thinking "What on Earth would happen if we have an accident? There is no way that this person could pull up". This is not in the fast lane—I am either in the middle or slow lane, but wherever I am, someone will come within inches of my bumper bar. If I could do 80, maybe I could get away from them—or maybe they would then go higher. However, I would like confirmation that the police will allow drivers to do 80, because that is very interesting.
	My other question is about these motorway warning sign systems, which certainly exist now on the M25. These are usually gantries with illuminated electric signs on them, which tell you that the speed might be 40, although it is normally a motorway speed. It is rather funny when one thinks of Fred Mulley, the Minister who introduced the M25. When he passed the plans he said, "It will never be used", but by the time it was built it was already too small. The M25 is always crowded.
	I have been told that the illuminated electronic motorway signs—the electric light signs—are not enforceable. They are optional and you cannot be hauled up because they are not mandatory. Will the Minister clarify that for me because there seems to be a great lack of understanding about whether you are obliged to abide by those signs. Again, masses of people do not seem to. Are you or are you not obliged? I support the general principle of this amendment.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I would be very surprised if my noble friend, when he replies, is able to say that there is any public road in Britain on which a speed of 80 miles an hour is legal. There may be many motorways on which there is an absence of police patrols and people cheerfully speed above 70 miles per hour knowing that they will not get caught—often in the absence of safety cameras to catch them as well. However, it is my understanding that there is no legal limit above 70 mph anywhere and I am sure that my noble friend will make that point.
	I oppose this amendment, not because I am in any way anti-motorist, but because, in a Bill that seeks to improve road safety, it would send an extraordinary signal if in an amendment we increased the speed limit. Nobody can argue that it is safer to travel faster. Therefore, we would be accepting that people are at present breaking the law and that that breaking of the law should be condoned. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, if the speed limit goes up to 80 mph, the law will be broken at 90 mph or above, and that is even more dangerous than what is proposed.

Viscount Goschen: The fact is that the current speed limit of 70 miles an hour is in disrepute because it is so widely ignored by motorists. I note that the percentage of traffic that breaks the 70 miles an hour limit is quoted at 20 per cent. I should have thought that it was much higher, but none the less, let us accept that figure for the moment. The present position is that a law is not enforced. You can drive quite happily past a police car at 85 miles per hour and the policeman will not stop you.
	In response to the noble Lord who has just spoken, clearly, this is not an official policy. But it appears to be a de facto operational policy of the police. Therefore, if faced with a law that people generally choose not to obey, and are not chastised if they do not obey it, we should set a limit that reflects advances in motor car technology—ABS breaks, better tyres and so forth—and enforce that rigorously.
	We know that enforcement technology is changing very rapidly. We have not seen too many so-called safety cameras—speed cameras—on the motorway network to date, but undoubtedly, the prospect of raising substantial sums of revenue from the motorists will arise. I noted in a newspaper this morning that one traffic camera on a motorway has raised £1.2 million. I am sure that the Government will not ignore that. With better enforcement technology, the issue of speed creep will go away. It will become known that if you exceed the new 80 miles per hour limit you will be prosecuted and there will be no escape.
	I am quite sure that the Minister will stand up and say that this proposal would incite people to drive faster. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. I should have thought that a limit that has the support of the motoring public that is then properly enforced would be the answer, so I support my noble friend.

Lord Bradshaw: I do not support the amendment for many reasons. First, the throughput of motorways is very much determined by the average speed of the traffic moving through them. If a few vehicles are going very fast and some are going relatively slowly, fewer vehicles will go through than if everyone went through at a constant speed. That is the science behind the cameras that have been put on the M25, where the variable limits are adjusted so that the maximum number of vehicles can get through the motorway at a given time. There are certainly plenty of speed cameras in force on the M25, mainly because men are working there.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, mentioned a speed camera that has raised £1.2 million. That it is perfectly true. The cameras that he mentioned are at Bristol. They have been erected while the motorway is being repaired. They have been in operation for only a month or two. The limit is 40 miles per hour. They have raised all that money because people have been going through at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour. In all the motorway service stations in the area big notices warn people that there is a speed limit. It is to protect people who are working there. I am certain that I have these statistics right: in the same period three workmen have been killed and seven seriously injured. No other industry would tolerate that level. If three railwaymen had been killed and seven injured there would be shouts for a public inquiry and all sorts of things, whereas on the roads it is dismissed as just more casualties.
	The 70 mile per hour limit is, as has been said, widely not observed, but we know that people go along at about 80 miles per hour and that is more or less tolerated. However, we also know that, if the limit were raised to 80, the amount of tailgating and other unsocial behaviour by people bullying their way along the motorway would increase no end. To mix up lorries which are supposed to go at only 56 miles per hour with cars going along at 90 or 100 miles per hour is a recipe for disaster and tragedy. Certainly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that if he is expecting any support from me he is certainly mistaken.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had another interesting and lively debate and one that could have been predicted. The arguments have been well rehearsed on previous occasions. I will make one obvious salient point—my noble friend Lord Faulkner expressed it first, so I will admit to plagiarism. This is a road safety Bill. Therefore, it behoves those who wish to present amendments to indicate how they would enhance road safety. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said that common sense suggests that we should increase the limit to the speed at which a certain proportion of drivers drive regularly on our motorways. The answer to that was given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, first. People drive at 80 because the speed limit is 70 miles per hour. If the speed limit were 80, they would drive at 90.
	This is not a question of people observing speed limits rigorously when they are absolutely sure that the limits are the right ones and having a level of tolerance when they think that they are the wrong ones. That is not so at all. People know that their cars can go faster. The majority of vehicles can get up to these speeds with ease and therefore the driver is not constrained by feeling that he is driving his car at its extremity. At 90 miles an hour the vast majority of cars—certainly the ones that occupy the outside lanes of the motorway—always give drivers the impression that they are fully under control. There is no constraint with regard to that.
	So where does common sense cut in? There is a well known belief that it is quite difficult to enforce speed limits tight to the margin. The higher one goes, the more difficult it is to operate in the margin. The police have a margin at 30 miles an hour, where they do not enforce the speed limit at 31 miles an hour, although I am not saying that now and again one or two people do not get caught close to that lower limit. However, even with cameras—particularly with cameras—the police need the security of knowing that they will win the case and that the information is sufficiently accurate.
	I am afraid that the problem with cameras is that the tolerance level is a percentage level, so as the speed rises, so the percentage of tolerance has to be increased. The simple fact of the matter is that every motorist in the country will believe—and they will be reasonably right in their belief—that if the police do not hit him at 75 mph, even at 80 mph, when the limit is 70 mph, they will certainly not hit him at bang on 80 mph when the limit is 80 mph, because the technology would not secure the prosecution. The police would be obliged to operate a level of tolerance beyond 80 mph. What would that mean? Of course, it would mean a level of tolerance pushing towards 90 mph. It would not be a question of common sense, but a question of every driver knowing what the outer limit was as far as likely prosecution was concerned. That is the nature of progress in a car.
	If I am causing puzzlement because a number of noble Lords are not attracted ever to driving a car close to the speed limits, all I can say is that our fellow citizens do. Every day, one just knows that that is the case. If you stick to the speed limits on any road in Britain, you will find yourself under a degree of pressure. You will certainly be passed if it is possible to pass you. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, indicated, if you go along at 70 mph on the motorway, you will be passed by a very substantial proportion of the traffic. I got a nod of agreement from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on that. I will not get a nod of agreement when I say that if the limit were 80 mph, pretty similar proportions of motorists would be driving in excess of that speed too.
	If noble Lords proposing the amendment were to say, "But we've got evidence to show that the faster the traffic goes and the more contented and fulfilled the driver is, the safer the traffic", it might be a different matter, but it is not so. Perhaps I may appeal to the common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, by asking whether it is likely that the roads become safer at higher speeds. First, there is our old friend, reaction time, and our old friend, the question whether even the safest of cars can brake as effectively from 90 mph as they can from a speed that is 10 mph lower.
	We have of course the evidence from those who have tried this exercise. In the United States, we are able to compare those states which raised the speed limit—modestly, to 75 mph—with the many states which kept the old speed limit. The beauty of the United States' federal constitution is that no state has to do what the others do. The difference between the states that increased their speed limits and those that did not was a 38 per cent accident rate. It is not always that one can refer to the United States as a laboratory for all aspects of social activity, but I think that driving a car is not a bad laboratory. After all, the United States have the highest level of car ownership in the world and that is the evidence that they have produced.
	Of course we understand the power of the argument that laws are valid because they meet with public opinion and are obeyed voluntarily by our fellow citizens without need for enforcement; and that any law which requires total enforcement is not doing its job because it does not have the support of the public. But let us be absolutely clear about the motorway speed limit. If we increase that speed limit, our fellow citizens—and we ourselves perhaps—would stretch the limits beyond the speed limit, because that is what we do.
	In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, the technology exists. Between Junctions 10 and 15 of the M25, that most beloved of motorways, gantry-mounted controls operate variable speed limits. Nobody has ever dared to ask, "Why don't you up them a bit to 80"? "Variable speed limits" mean that a 70 mph limit is in force and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the speed limits are sometimes reduced because of traffic conditions and traffic flow, and, of course, weather conditions. Would that we had the technology right across our motorway system. We do not have it, and that is why we cannot use variable limits in that way. But I have no doubt, given the increase in car ownership and the problems of congestion on our roads, that we probably will have to face up to the bills involved in this technology. It has been installed at those particular junctions on the M25 for two reasons: first, the extensive roadworks as the road is being constructed there; secondly, it is the most intensively used motorway in the United Kingdom by quite a significant margin. That is why the technology is in place there. I hope that answers the noble Baroness's question, but it may not have done.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I asked the Minister—and I will repeat the question—whether, when that variable limit comes up, you are obliged to abide by it or whether, as I am often told, it is advisory only.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, the technology is in place and the variable limit is enforced there. That is the distinction between Junctions 10 to 15 on the M25 and all other motorways. We do not have the technology for camera enforcement elsewhere. We are able to use quite sophisticated strategies for the speeds at which traffic should go through that very difficult area on that most congested of motorways. We may in due course develop the technology elsewhere. First, it must be proven in terms of the safety advantages it brings to the nation and, secondly, there is always the question of cost.
	I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, but the case is not proven and I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: I am disappointed by the Minister's answer because I have found that, on this Bill, he and I agree with each other more than we do with other noble Lords. I have agreed with a lot of what he has said.
	We are discussing a Road Safety Bill, and everything we want to do is related to road safety, but the legislation has to be acceptable and to recognise the world as it is, rather than simply reflect the views of those sitting on the red Benches of this House. A number of our debates have not really been representative of what is going on in the world, although I know some noble Lords here have a particular interest in road safety, as we all do.
	If one legislates for speed limits, people should keep to them. A lot of the discussion that we have just had has been based on the assumption that if you have an 80 mph speed limit everyone will drive at 90 mph. That is not at all what I meant or what I suggest. As noble Lords have said, modern technology has moved on. I would suggest various speed limits from 20 mph to 80 mph, but that they are enforced, so that people know that if they exceed them they are breaking the law.
	So much of the debate has been about people exceeding those speed limits on motorways and not being penalised, which is wrong. Therefore, this part of the debate has been very strange. People want to drive speed limits down. On some occasions, if it is the right thing to do, the Government should be looking at raising them or at least judging, at times, what the right speed limit is, as in the case of the flexible limit on the M25. We all know that it would be almost impossible to drive at 80 mph on the M25, because, whatever the time of day, it is full. We are talking mostly about other motorways, not the M25.
	Before the next stage, I will try to find some evidence to show that we can save lives by raising the speed limit. I am sure that evidence exists somewhere in the world. I implore everyone here to try to be a bit more flexible in their approach. We want this legislation to improve road safety, but not to be seen by the outside world as being unrepresentative of the world as it is. Millions of people use cars, and the use of cars will increase a lot more. Statistics in my county show that there will be a 20 per cent increase in the number of cars in the next 10 years. We know that such increases will not stop. We have to live in the world that exists.
	I shall reflect on all that has been said and see what we have to do in the next round. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 75:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"SPEED LIMITS FOR VEHICLES OF CERTAIN CLASSES
	In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in paragraph 5(2)(b)(iii), column 3(c), leave out "40" and insert "50"."

Baroness Hanham: We return to speed restrictions. The amendment would increase the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageways from 40 mph to 50 mph. The reason is to cut congestion and, particularly, to reduce the temptation of motorists to risk a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. The amendment needs to be looked at in the context of the maximum speed being suitable for the circumstances.
	At present the maximum speed for lorries on single carriageways is 40 mph. We know that lorries have become safer, that their braking is more efficient, and that the quality of many of our single carriageways—particularly trunk roads—has increased significantly. Some time ago in the past it was possible to overtake lorries on single carriageway roads with relative ease because traffic was much lighter and there were far fewer vehicles coming in the opposite direction. Drivers nowadays know that it is almost impossible to overtake any vehicle at busy times on single carriageway roads. As a result, all traffic goes at the speed of the slowest, which means that if a lorry is going at 40 mph at the front of the queue everybody trails along at about 30 mph.
	Heavy goods vehicles often find themselves generating driver frustration. I understand that Tesco now has a sign on the back of all its lorries saying "This lorry is limited to 40 mph" because so many motorists find that speed incredible and sometimes vent their frustration on the driver. In times past I suspect that some lorry drivers went above the speed of 40 mph, but with cameras and tachographs they cannot do so. As a result, the frustration of drivers behind them creates a danger.
	Introducing such a change would improve road safety rather than making it worse. That is the view of those in the commercial goods industry, of many of those who drive heavy goods vehicles, and of most of the people who drive behind them. It is meant to be a practical amendment and goes back to what my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said in his closing remarks on the previous amendment. While we all want road safety, we must consider the practicalities of millions of drivers and the frustrations and difficulties that they face daily.
	The amendment refers to heavy goods vehicles only. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: This is a different matter from the previous amendment. If my noble friend had not tabled the amendment, I should have done so, and I apologise for not having put my name to it.
	In the UK we are building more and more high quality and wide single carriageways where a dual carriageway is not justified. Often top speeds of 50 mph on those routes gives a reasonable average speed, but 40 mph does not. That creates a terrible temptation, often in frustration, to overtake a heavy goods vehicle. I do not believe that the main driver for the amendment should be to reduce congestion or increase productivity for heavy goods vehicles.
	The main driver for the amendment is pure safety. A head-on collision with an impact speed of more than 100 mph is not survivable. It is also totally unfair to the completely blameless driver coming the other way who has a head-on collision with a car attempting to overtake a heavy goods vehicle. A particular problem is that what may appear to be an ideal location to overtake a heavy goods vehicle, such as a junction because the road is widened out with even better visibility, is the worst possible place to overtake.
	I am really concerned that Ministers do not understand how refined modern heavy goods vehicles are. I urge the Minister or a colleague in the other place with responsibilities for these matters to take a ride in a heavy goods vehicle—perhaps off-road at MIRA or Millbrook—to see what a modern vehicle is like at 40 mph and 50 mph. My experience of driving heavy goods vehicles tells me that if the Minister maintains his current position, he will condemn many people to unnecessary death in a brutal head-on collision with high impact speeds.

Lord Berkeley: This is another amendment that seems to argue that it is safer to go faster. We have no statistics to back that up, but it appears that frustration builds up to such a high level among car drivers that they kill themselves overtaking. With the speed of approach of two vehicles when one is coming the other way, it is very serious, but it seems that it is less serious if drivers can go faster.
	The statistics produced by the Department for Transport show that poor overtaking in those circumstances is implicated in only 4 per cent of fatal crashes, while excessive speed is a factor in 28 per cent of such incidents.
	Lorries are heavy, but most modern lorries are extremely efficient, and are driven by professional drivers. The same cannot be said for many motorists. Even so, in 2003 the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres from HGVs was 90 per cent higher than for cars over the same distance. On rural A roads it was 30 per cent higher; on other rural roads it was 46 per cent higher. Compliance with speed limits is even worse—72 per cent of HGVs exceed the 40 mph speed limit. Therefore, nearly three-quarters of HGVs exceed the speed limit.
	The same argument is used for motorways: increase the speed limit and everybody will be happy. However, the statistics do not bear that out. The best thing for a frustrated motorist to do is to stop and have a cup of coffee or take a tranquiliser. If motorists are feeling that frustrated they should not be driving. Lorries have just as much right to be on the road as cars. Perhaps the alternative solution is to reduce the speed limit for cars and everybody will be going at the same speed.

Lord Bradshaw: This is another amendment with which we have very little sympathy. The statistics quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee related to Tesco vehicles.

Earl Attlee: I never quoted any figures.

Baroness Hanham: I mentioned Tesco but I gave no statistics.

Lord Bradshaw: Tesco operates one of the best fleets of lorries in the country, which is commonly acknowledged in the industry. They are good vehicles, which are professionally maintained and well operated. They have signs on the back saying that they are supposed to go at 40 mph.
	The majority of heavy goods vehicles are not in that class and there is a large majority that are very badly maintained and have poor braking characteristics and other things. I would be very sad indeed if they were allowed to go faster. There are frustrations within the haulage industry about such matters as the working time directive and the fact that it would like to schedule its lorries at faster speeds to enable a driver to complete a journey within the scheduled time.

Baroness Hanham: I am becoming very concerned that this discussion on my amendment is not the discussion which I thought we would have. This is not about the rationale for lorries to go faster so that they reach their destination quicker and enable a little more business to be done. This discussion is about the frustration of drivers travelling behind lorries who cannot get past them, and the road safety implications of frustrated drivers trying to overtake lorries. If those lorries were travelling about 10 miles faster, the drivers would probably just sit it out.

Lord Bradshaw: That may be so but if the noble Baroness reads the road haulage press she must be aware of the pressure that is being brought by the road haulage industry for the speed limit for lorries to be raised to improve the productivity of the fleet. That is a factor in the whole of the discussion. I am not in any way ignorant of the facts; I know what I am talking about. I travel behind lorries but it is rare to find an HGV travelling at 40 miles per hour, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. They usually travel at about 50 miles per hour. If the speed limit were raised, they would travel even faster. We are back to the same argument that we have had about motorways—that the current limits are as safe as they can be. Some lorries could go faster. The modern lorries to which reference has been made have much better braking, much better visibility and so on. However, that does not constitute the whole of the lorry fleet and we have to take into account the whole of the lorry fleet.

The Earl of Erroll: I am amazed at the notion that all these ancient lorries are trundling along our roads, or certainly where the noble Lord who has just spoken lives, as I have not noticed that. Having tried to buy an old lorry to help cart grain on my wife's farm, I know how difficult it is to find such things. They are all in junkyards and are not allowed to travel on the roads. Such vehicles are inspected all the time. Trying to describe a Victorian state of affairs does not get us any further forward.
	The suggestion that frustrated drivers should take tranquillisers will not help road safety at all. It would slow down drivers' reactions even further and cause many problems. It is astonishing to hear that suggestion from a noble Lord who is normally very responsible as regards road safety.
	The notion that it is a terrible idea to improve industry's productivity and that that is the main reason you should knock down a perfectly sensible amendment is another astonishing idea. If the productivity of the road haulage industry were increased as a result of the measure, that would be a wonderful by-product. I feel very strongly about the amendment. Sometimes you get your timing wrong, or there is a crisis and you have to get somewhere quickly. You do not want to break the speed limit but you get stuck behind a slow moving chain of traffic. Depending on the urgency of the situation, there is a tendency for people to take risks. I have done that in the past. That is very dangerous. These days it is much more dangerous than it used to be as people do not expect others to overtake; people tend to tailgate much more and it is harder to get back into lines of traffic. That is why I no longer take such risks. However, some people will still take those risks.
	Further, due to the existence of speed cameras people are frightened to accelerate properly while overtaking so they do not overtake in the shortest possible time, which also increases the risk. The amendment that we are discussing is very sensible as it would result in all the traffic moving at the same speed. That would result in far greater road safety. Lorries are quite capable of travelling at 50 miles per hour. The notion that they are not is ridiculous. I believe that, if accepted, the amendment would considerably enhance road safety.

Baroness Crawley: Once again consensus has not broken out. The intent of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, appears to be to increase the speed limit for HGVs from 40 to 50 miles per hour on single carriage roads. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, such a change would clearly bring benefits for the road haulage industry in that it would lawfully be able to deliver goods faster and, presumably, be able to make its operations more cost effective, as other noble Lords have said. Those are very understandable objectives. Of course, we would all like to get where we are going faster and to arrive sooner. However, that desire needs to be balanced against the risks involved.
	The 40 mile per hour speed limit for HGVs on single carriageways is there for a purpose. It is there because it will generally take an HGV longer to stop than a car at any given speed. The extra distance it will take to stop increases the faster the vehicle is travelling. So whereas it is possible for an HGV travelling at 40 miles per hour to pull up in time to avoid hitting a car stopping in an emergency at, say 60 miles per hour, it would be very unlikely to be able to stop if it were travelling very much faster. Some very modern HGVs might be able to do so—the noble Baroness raised that point, as did other noble Lords, including, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—but the vast majority might not. That, I suggest, is the problem with the proposal.

The Earl of Erroll: It is impossible for a lorry travelling at 40 miles per hour to follow a car travelling at 60 miles per hour. That lorry could not run into the back of the car because a vehicle travelling at 40 miles per hour cannot follow one travelling at 60 miles per hour—the one travelling at 60 miles per hour would have disappeared into the distance.

Baroness Crawley: I will think about that in the fullness of time.

Earl Attlee: Following on from that argument, why is the noble Baroness content for an HGV to travel at 50 miles per hour on a dual carriageway when a car can travel at 70 miles per hour on the same road?

Baroness Crawley: We are talking about single carriageways. We are talking about a car stopping in an emergency when travelling at 60 miles per hour and a shunt occurring. However, I shall read Hansard as regards the car travelling in front.
	Noble Lords should bear in mind that, because of their size and weight, accidents involving HGVs will generally have more serious consequences than accidents involving smaller, lighter vehicles. This is the real issue. If the HGV speed limit were to be increased, would there be more rear-end shunt accidents involving HGVs? The answer to that question is to some extent unknown, but even at the current 40 miles per hour speed limit, the HGV accident involvement rate on single carriageway rural roads is some 45 per cent higher than that for cars. Part of the explanation for that might be the fact that HGVs are generally less manoeuvrable than cars because of the size of HGVs. A further part of the explanation might be the fact that so many HGVs already travel faster than the speed limit anyway. The statistics show that 30 per cent already exceed even 50 miles per hour. At any rate, if the HGV speed limit were to be increased, the Government fear that there would be more accidents, injuries and fatalities.
	It is sometimes said that car drivers become irritated when following slower moving HGVs, and that having to do so might even encourage dangerous overtaking manoeuvres in some cases. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to that frustration. Of course, that is a concern, but I am afraid that it will never be possible to find a speed limit which will satisfy some drivers. Indeed, the very same people who become irritated when following an HGV at 40 miles per hour are just as likely to be equally irritated if they are following at 50 miles per hour. Sadly, it seems to be a fact of life that some people just do not like following other vehicles, irrespective of what type of vehicle we are talking about. But that is not a good reason to increase the HGV speed limit. Such concerns about what is essentially bad driving need instead to be addressed by promoting better awareness—which is something that the Department for Transport does—and, where necessary, by appropriate enforcement action by the police. In short, increasing the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single-carriage roads would create unacceptable risks to road safety. For that simple but nevertheless critical reason, I sincerely hope that noble Lords will be persuaded and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am extremely disappointed with the response from all noble Lords to the amendment. I suggested that the noble Baroness the Minister take a test drive. I have just received a communication saying that I can organise one, so if the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, wants to go for a drive on a test track in a heavy goods vehicle, I can arrange it. They will get a big surprise about how advanced modern vehicles are.

Baroness Hanham: I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Attlee. He knows far more about heavy goods vehicles than I do. What I do know is the frustration of driving behind a very slow vehicle on a road that, potentially, should have vehicles going at a higher speed. I have limited myself to heavy goods vehicles and have not included tractors or JCBs that tootle along roads. If we raised the speed limit to 50 mph for a tractor or a JCB, noble Lords would have some right to ask what I was getting at.
	I worry a little about this debate. It is all very worthy: just clamp down and do not look at how the motorist reacts to what we are trying to do. The more difficult things are made for motorists, the more likely it is that there will be accidents. I have trailed many a vehicle on many a road at 30 mph, and no amount of coffee or tranquillisers would have made the situation any better. It just gets worse. One is tempted to try to overtake in all the wrong places. A steady 50 mph is a far better speed than 40 mph or going down to 30 mph.
	I fear that I am not pushing at an open door. It is not a matter that I intend to give up. Therefore I shall withdraw the amendment but, after the Minister has had her ride on the test track in one of the latest versions of an HGV—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Attlee will ensure that there is also a not quite so recent version so that she can see how worthy they are—it will be back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I think that this is a convenient moment to break. I suggest that the Committee does not recommence before twenty-four minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Dental Health Research

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, what steps they are taking to support research into dental health.
	My Lords, I shall not waste the time of the House by explaining why we desperately need more working dentists in Britain. We all know that. It is fair to say that the Government are trying to tackle the problem. The Walport report is under way, and an additional 170 dental undergraduate places have been allocated, but the case that I wish to make to the Government tonight is that they are missing the fact that without adequate money for dental research we shall not have the new dentists we need, however many dental students there may be.
	On 14 June, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that £25 million per annum had been set aside for clinical research over the next four years—Hansard col. 1123—but that covers all medical research. When I heard that, I feared that dental research would be only a tiny proportion of the whole, so on the following day I made inquiries at the Department of Health. No one there could tell me how much of the £25 million was for dental as distinct from medical research. The department explained that the funding covered areas such as epidemiology; checking exactly how hospitals and universities were spending the money on; and checking if and how it was seeping down to ensure better treatments for patients.
	An eminent dental hospital professor recently wrote to me. He stated:
	"One of the major disincentives in academic dentistry is the chronic lack of dedicated government funding for clinical research in oral healthcare".
	The research purse looks big, but it has to cover many diverse causes, and dental research seems to be almost at the bottom of the list. Proper funding for research is not just one way but, I believe, the only way to get the dentists whom we so urgently need.
	On 14 June, the Minister spoke of,
	"an unprecedented increase in dental student numbers".—[Official Report, 14/6/05; col. 1124.]
	There is not a lot of point in having more students if there are no teachers to teach them. The writing is on the wall for all to see.
	I am sorry to say that teacher numbers are falling steadily. I believe that the Government intend to listen—I have no doubt about that—but unless they understand and act to meet the grave concern being expressed by the Council of Deans of Dental Schools and by eminent professors in the field, such as Dr Ian Chapple of the Birmingham Dental Hospital, we shall face real trouble. Clinical academic numbers are falling. The last year for which I could obtain figures was 2003–04. The figures showed a drop of 6 per cent. If that drop continues, I dread to see the figures for 2004–05. I beg the Government to study the pressures on the recruitment and retention of academic dentists.
	In too many cases, dental hospitals are in poor shape as workplaces. That is not connected with research, but it is part of the point that I wish to make. Major rebuilds are undoubtedly needed. The infrastructures are not good. Capital moneys promised in the drive to get more students do not even meet the interest charges on proposed rebuilds. It is important to get that point on the record. I felt bound to mention those facts in passing, but they are only peripheral to my main point, which is that insufficient research funding is the big stumbling block in getting and keeping the dental teachers we must have.
	I want to point out a few things about the work that dental teachers do. It is hugely demanding. They have to see and treat patients, rather like a dentist does in his ordinary work. Beyond that, they have to give lectures, teach students, answer their questions and be there to respond to their problems. Many are honorary consultants to NHS trusts and, in addition, have administrative duties. We should compare that to the demands on a dentist in ordinary practice. On top of all that, they somehow have to find time for research, which is made extremely hard by the lack of funds.
	It is perhaps not widely recognised how crucial that research is, nor is it widely understood that a dental clinical academic's performance is primarily judged on his research—not on his chair-side manner with his patients, nor on his lectures to his students, his consultancies or his administrative skills. Why is that the case? Because the most common diseases that are suffered by man are dental—that is not widely known. In Britain, they cost the NHS £2 billion a year, not including the amount spent on private care.
	Research should be recognised for the essential that it is. Many people outside the House currently struggling with the problem recommend the commissioning of an immediate and far-reaching review of UK dental research funding. I hope that that might lead to a UK-wide research council, so that those at the coal face who have to deal with the problems day by day can give their expert views, which have been collected over many years, on the problems and difficulties. That is what the profession wants, and that is what the public needs. No such body exists.
	In the light of all that, it is remarkable that our UK dental academics, not only for one year but year on year, have received distinguished scientist awards from the International Association for Dental Research. Noble Lords may be interested to know that last year, 15 awards were made world-wide and, of those, Britain won four. If the Minister is tempted to say, in the light of that intelligence, "There you are; obviously, if they are doing that well, they do not need any more research funds", I would remind him of the man who boasted that he had trained his donkey to do without food and that he had succeeded in doing that, when the donkey died.
	The profession cannot go on like this. There is a clearly discernable brain drain—not to the USA, as it happens, at this time, as has happened in the past, but to non-research and non-academic posts in the private sector. Disillusionment in the profession is rife. We should be proud of such wonderful people, who work so hard and so effectively in our dental hospitals. We should acknowledge their achievements and give them the encouragement and resources to continue.
	My mother-in-law, aged 24, way back in the 1920s, had all her teeth out. There was nothing wrong with any of them, but that was her major 21st birthday present. She would thus avoid toothache, caries and gum problems for the whole of her life. Hooray! How marvellous. But imagine taking good, sound teeth—every one—out of the head of a girl of 24. She was not the only one. That happened normally. Compare that with today's level of care. Entirely due to dental research, a generation of young people today grow up without any dental decay—they do not have to have all their teeth out.
	We know about the difficulties for teeth caused by hazardous diets, the dangers for mouth health of smoking, and about periodontal diseases, cancer and oral sepsis. Dental research has given us so much. I could not obtain from the Department of Health figures on how much of the medical research budget went to dentistry. Of all those millions, I am told that dentistry receives only £6,000 out of £25 million. Not only is that figure hopelessly inadequate, not only do the dedicated researchers richly deserve our thanks and a fairer amount of public money, but, unless they get it, they will continue to leave, and the students will have no teachers and the public no dentists.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my noble friend put the case for the need for dental research clearly. I thank her for that and for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.
	Funding, opportunity, interest and skill are the essentials for dental research. I believe that all are lacking. Perhaps I may take your Lordships back a step from research itself, as things are going wrong at a much earlier stage. There are so many hurdles for dentists to jump to become academic dentists—and it is from those that the researchers come—that fewer and fewer dentists are making the attempt.
	The route to become a professor is long. The dean of the post-graduate Eastman Institute of Dental Surgery had 16 years of training. Training times have been shortened, but are still long and costly. Many dentists do a three year masters degree, often in the United States. To reach consultant status you have to survive an overdose of NHS bureaucracy. There seems to be a barrier between the NHS and academic dentistry.
	The salaries of clinical academics are not good and compare unfavourably with the earnings of those in dental practice. A specialist dentist charging £1,000 per implant is anecdotally quoted as carrying out 40 implants on one day—but 20 is the more realistic number. No academic salary can compare. Our highest paid dental professor may earn about £150,000. His Swiss equivalent is paid more than three times that sum, about £500,000 normally. Noble Lords may note that I said "his", because no woman professor earns that. Some Harley Street dentists are reputed to have a turnover of fees of about £700,000.
	I have quoted the extremes of dentistry, but at whichever level the comparison is made, the academic dentist loses out. All registered dentists must now prove that they have undergone a suitable amount of "continuing professional development", or CPD, throughout the year. At some courses they are electronically tagged to prove the actual time spent at the course. They are paid a special fee by the NHS of £59.30 per hour to compensate for their loss of practice time. To me, it is an alarming statistic that the clinical academic dentist providing that essential course is paid less per session than the amount that the NHS pays the practitioner to attend.
	Is it surprising that there is a fall in the number of clinical academic dentists—a drop of 6 per cent in the past year—and a further 14 per cent decrease in the number of lecturers. There is no way in which the Government will be able to honour their commitment to increase dental students by 25 per cent unless they can ensure that they have the teaching staff. My noble friend made that point and I support her. Some 50 per cent of clinical academics are now aged over 45 and only 12 per cent of clinical professionals are female. There is an opportunity to change academic dentistry so that it is perceived as an attractive career by the young and by women.
	However, funding is the real issue. Can the Minister confirm that all the funding for new dental places will be spent on dental education and not be top-sliced by universities and hospital trusts?
	London, our capital city, has the highest UK population and a very high dental need, but it is not easy to attract dentists to train for academic posts here, as the cost of living in London is high, schools for children may not be up to standard, and housing is a major problem.
	As a Commonwealth dentist myself, I am distressed by the case of the New Zealand dentist who has found it difficult to obtain practice rights in the UK. I quote from the correspondence in the British Dental Journal. In her letter, this dentist explains how difficult it has been to pass the test, called the International Qualifying Examination. This now costs £2,200, as the exams have to be done in three parts and take nearly two years to do, and seems to be deliberately obstructive of Commonwealth dentists. I am aware that there are no spare people in Australia; there is a shortage of dentists there. It seems, however, that New Zealanders are keen to come, and I recall that they had a high standard of training.
	The dentist goes on to say that some New Zealand dentists here are working in pubs or in any other way. Who is going to spend £2,200 and then spend all that time trying to requalify? It is more fun to go and do these other things. If you come from any part of the European Union, however, your qualifications are not tested.
	The reply from the chief executive of the General Dental Council was terrible. He said the council decided to stop recognising overseas qualifications for a number of reasons. I remember when they stopped the Australian dental qualification being accepted. It was all because of a row—when someone went out there and enjoyed a bit too much of the local amber, as they might call it—over who should pay who to go out and test the Australians, and the chief executive's reply makes the same point. Eventually the qualification was reinstated. I was on the GDC, and helped a little bit in that.
	The GDC says it will undertake a review of the IQE, and it should. The standard of training in New Zealand has always been superb, and to have people coming from that country, ready and willing to work here, and instead working in a pub is unbelievable.
	The Minister has told us of the number of dentists who have chosen to work in the personal dentist services. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, made an interesting speech last week on this. He said that some of these dentists can now earn up to £100,000, and he sounded as if he knew what he was talking about. If the Minister accepts that he must have competent clinical dental academics to train dentists, the rates of pay must not be allowed to fall so far behind those of practitioners.
	When we have a good supply of dental academics, a strong and skilled team of dental researchers will follow. We have to realise, however, that these things will not happen automatically. We have to create an interest in, and an awareness of, the need to make this an attractive option for people. Dentistry starts with the teaching, and it all goes on from there.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Knight of Collingtree for her tenacity in championing the often overlooked dental research sector. She has a particular interest in the Birmingham Dental School, and has posed a number of interesting questions that I hope the Minister, who I know has an interest in the dental profession, will be able to resolve.
	I wish not only to applaud the excellent contribution dental research has made to healthcare policy, but to highlight the worrying workforce planning aspects, and the teaching-versus-research pressures of the dental clinical academic research sector.
	Dental research is part of the political debate about patient access to dental provision and how good oral health is to good general health. If we are to pursue preventive dentistry and good oral public health, and I am sure this is the direction the Government wish to achieve in their health strategies, it is imperative that we champion evidence-based patient care.
	The British Dental Association's briefing paper in this debate—and I am grateful to James Clarke for all his help—has outlined a number of good examples of where decent, well-researched oral health studies have provided evidence to wider public health debates. The research by Birmingham University on fizzy drinks and tooth erosion, and how consumption of such drinks by 12-year-olds massively increases the chance of suffering erosion, is a case in point. They found that four or more glasses per day increases the chances of erosion by an amazing 252 per cent. This type of work should play a key part in supporting Government policy-making to phase out fizzy drinks from our school vending machines.
	The work at Newcastle University on the importance of people having access to fluoridated water should underpin the public debates about the Government's decision to consult on local water fluoridation schemes, away from some of the opponents' alarmist and misleading arguments. This country's oral health would be much the poorer without this type of work, but unfortunately there are a number of issues that are making life increasingly difficult for dental clinical academics and researchers.
	One of the biggest issues facing this specialist sector is workforce shortages. The recent staffing level report by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools and the Council of Heads and Deans of Dental Schools found dental clinical academic numbers had decreased by 6 per cent in just a year. That is a huge number of trained and dedicated academics to lose in such a short period. The study also stated that there were a total of 208 vacant senior posts in academic medicine, with the staffing problems being even more acute in academic dentistry. This does not bode well for the future.
	The Government, though, for reasons I understand and support, want to increase undergraduate training places by 25 per cent. How do these two sets of statistics sit comfortably together? There is a feeling among the BDA's central committee for dental academic staff that any increase in undergraduate numbers without a commensurate increase in clinical academics will exacerbate an already fragile situation.
	As noble Lords might expect, my daily work brings me into contact with both practitioners and academics. One such academic has told me that any additional dental school, to which the Government have clearly committed themselves, will destabilise existing schools and damage research. I am also told that there is a general feeling among the dental academic community that they are being required to devote so much time to teaching that the quantity and quality of research is being severely limited. I fear for dental research if those remaining in dental academia are forced to spend even longer on teaching, but are still expected to fulfil their research commitments.
	I fully support the expansion of places. It can only be a good thing that this country produces more highly-qualified dentists in order for people to have full access to NHS dental services. Equally, though, the Government have to be realistic about who is actually going to teach these students, and at what cost to dental research work.
	There is a feeling that this situation will be further compounded by the patchy implementation of the new academic consultant contract and its aspiration of a 40-hour week. I am told that clinical academics in the main welcome this policy, but see it as a pipe-dream. The reality is that the average dental clinical academic works an average of 52 hours per week, yet universities are pushing job plans that would see all clinical consultant staff on a 40-hour week in the future. This well-meaning policy is doing nothing to alleviate feelings that the Government's plans on working conditions for dental academics is unrealistic and lacking any sort of joined-up implementation.
	The Government have been disappointingly vague on all these aspects. How are they going to arrest these alarming decreasing numbers of dental clinical academics and researchers? How are they going to find the right teaching and research balance for individual academics, especially in the light of the creation of 170 new undergraduate places? How will the academic consultant contract be successfully implemented? We have had a number of informative reports over the years—for instance, the Richards report, the Dearing report, the Walport report and the annual CHMS/CHDDS surveys—which have all highlighted the crisis in academic dentistry. And yet significant recruitment and retention problems remain and seem to be getting worse. I would therefore ask the Minister to set out specific plans in answer to these questions.
	A good start would be for the Government to recognise the concerns of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body in 2005, which indicated concern about the split in pay parity between NHS consultants and those holding honorary consultant contracts as a result of the awarding of additional programmed activities to NHS staff. The recommendations of the Walport report also support a policy of awarding all clinical academics pay parity with their NHS colleagues as a way of raising morale within the dental clinical academic profession. They also called for the creation of a cohort of new senior lectureships awarded through an annual national competition. It is hoped that that will get some much-needed new academics into the profession. Without the Government giving their full backing to the scheme, including full funding, I cannot see where the new, younger academic researchers who are desperately needed will come from.
	The dental academic researchers offer tremendous service to this country and are dedicated and committed professionals, but they feel that they are overworked and undervalued. Dental academic researchers are seeking assurances from the Minister and I hope that he will be able to offer some encouraging answers for immediate action.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for drawing the attention of the House to this important subject. I say that having spent all weekend feeling as though I was about to go to the dentist—it was terrifying! To get here and see the list of speakers before me did nothing to calm my nerves. I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments that have been made so capably and ably by other noble Lords.
	As we focus the debate on all five key factors, it is important to recognise the importance of academic dentistry to the provision of frontline dental services. Essentially, the debate is about five key factors: the potential for the current acute crisis in frontline dentistry to become more severe and chronic because of the lack of capacity in academic dentistry research; the unsustainable workload on existing research posts; the piecemeal and inadequate funding of research capacity; potential for the Government's proposals announced a year ago to weaken the existing academic dental research base; and the potentially harmful effects of failing to plan the development of academic dentistry as an integral part of the NHS.
	Acute and chronic shortages in frontline dentistry make the headlines every day, but shortages in research do not. Yet they are potentially much more serious. In July 2004, the then Health Secretary, John Reid, announced that the equivalent of 1,000 dentists would be recruited by 2005 and that would include dentists from overseas. He also announced the establishment of an additional 170 undergraduate training places and two new dental hospitals. That was an attempt to address the deficit of 3,000 dentists across the country.
	I will return to the phrase "the equivalent of", but for now I want to ask the Minister what percentage of the £250 million announced for dentistry is to be earmarked for investment in dental research and in increasing academic dental capacity. Previous speakers pointed out the statistics and the worrying decline in the number of academic dentists. I have pointed out that at present UK dental schools are increasingly hiring staff from overseas.
	Given the demonstrated reduction in the number of academic dentists, does the Minister not agree that the creation of a new dental school would jeopardise existing schools and their research programmes? I wonder what the benefit of that would be to frontline dentistry. When a number of institutions are failing to fill the posts they have, it is difficult to see why a new school is needed. Without an obvious rationale, one is tempted to speculate on whether or not lurking behind his proposal is yet another PFI deal. I invite the Minister to end such speculation by giving a definitive statement on that matter today.
	Of the new dental student places announced, 78 are intended to be in existing schools and 92 are intended for new schools or satellite schools. It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain exactly what these satellite schools are. What is the reason for their establishment? What will they do? Where will they be? How will they relate to existing dental schools? More importantly, how will they be staffed? Will these be schools which train dentists or, returning to John Reid's announcement in 2004, will they be training schools for professions allied to dentistry and dental nurses, thereby giving the equivalence of which he spoke?
	The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, talked about the intended rise in student numbers and the inevitable growth in the demand for teaching time, which will lead in consequence to a decline in the time available for research. How do the Government intend to enable dental schools to sustain both necessary functions?
	Development of research is essential to dentistry and dental education. Dental school funding comes from three sources: the Higher Education Funding Council, the DfES and the Department of Health. While the Department of Health may fund more dental school places, it does not necessarily fund the creation or development of clinical academic posts. How will the Department of Health work with the DfES and the HEFC to ensure that there are sufficient clinical academic posts for dentistry? Furthermore, can he assure the House that his department will work with those two other bodies to align their funding processes so that the system of funding becomes sufficiently transparent to allow planning to a realistic timetable? That must be one of several years, noting the noble Baroness's point about how long it takes to train academic dentists.
	Maintenance of oral health is integral to the improvement of the general health of the nation and achieving the Government's public health objectives. Study after study shows that dental and oral healthcare research should not be separate from the rest of the NHS. One can think, for example, of the effect of bad dental health on specific groups in the population, such as older people and children. It seems strange that at a time when dentistry, like the rest of medicine, is having to come to terms with new genetic knowledge and some of the new diagnostic techniques, one should propose another dental school as stand-alone and not part of the rest of the NHS.
	Currently, the UK's dental research is well recognised internationally as being of a high standard. It seems that we should at this point attempt to ensure that within the NHS we retain the basis on which we can plan to maintain those levels of excellence into the future. Clinical academic dentistry does not enjoy the NHS and other funding available to academic medicine. In medicine, 44 per cent of posts are funded by research councils, while the comparable figure for dentistry is 82 per cent. The lack of NHS-funded staff available to dental school places puts additional pressures on the funding councils, whose performance is judged by the research output. Dentistry encompasses specialist technical subjects—subjects such as surgical dentistry, oral radiology and oral microbiology. Deficits in those posts are becoming more acute.
	There is a case for saying that unless the Government act now with a plan over a considerable period of time to invest not only in academic teaching but in specialist dental research, we are storing up enormous problems for the frontline dental services in the future. Indeed, if one looks at it, it seems as though the Government's present policy on dentistry is a bit "drill and fill" rather than a preventive strategy as a whole.
	It will take at least 10 years to fill those posts that are empty at the moment. Unless we are going to plunder other nations to take from them their academic staff it is important that we grow our own at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, is right that this issue needs to be addressed urgently and strategically if the chronic shortages of frontline dentistry are not to get worse.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I have sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker; I too was that woman at the weekend.
	I thank my noble friend Baroness Knight for her clear and timely introduction to such an important topic. This Question, following on the heels of the Question asked by my noble friend Lady Gardener of Parkes a couple of weeks ago on the availability of NHS dental services for all and an interesting and lively debate in another place on the same subject last week, serves to emphasise the importance of dentistry as a key component in maintaining the good health of all of us in this country.
	I should think that most of your Lordships will have suffered at one time or another from some form of dental disease. According to the Council of Heads and Deans of Dental Schools,
	"the NHS spend alone on this most common disease . . . is around £2 billion per annum".
	Yet less than half of the adult population of England is registered with an NHS dentist, leaving everyone else to find vast sums from their own pockets or not go to a dentist at all. One of my abiding memories of the general election campaign will be the lady who appeared on a television programme with the Prime Minister who had resorted to pulling out her own teeth.
	On the basis that prevention is always better than cure—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Colwyn; an expert in the field—surely the two most important aspects of dentistry are good oral hygiene, established through regular visits to the dentist from an early age, and research into dental disease. I remember that, when my children were small, I became aware of research showing that regularly drinking cordial from a feeder beaker was bad for them because it caused tooth decay. Because I was aware of it, I was able to do something about it.
	Recently, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned, articles in the British Dental Journal have brought similar problems to the awareness of the British public. Research last year from Birmingham identified the heavy consumption of fizzy drinks as a main cause of teenage tooth erosion. Research from Newcastle shows that children who drink bottled water miss out on the required levels of fluoride to protect their teeth from decay. That causes particular concern, given that the consumption of bottled water is rising.
	I do not think that anyone could or would argue against the premise that the need for evidence-based research is vital and that high-quality research goes hand in hand with basic dental provision. As the Chief Dental Officer, Professor Raman Bedi, noted,
	"the plans for the expansion of dental services are critically dependent upon support for and rehabilitation of academic dentistry".
	That view was backed up by a joint report, published last month, by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools and the Council of Heads and Deans of Dental Schools, calling for an assurance of long-term and adequate funding for the expansion in undergraduate places, to ensure stability in our dental schools, thus avoiding any further compromise of the standard of dental education in the UK.
	The Minister told your Lordships' House on a previous occasion that our dental courses had an international reputation that continued to attract students from all over the world. He is right, and we should be proud of that. But pressures from the research assessment exercise, along with closures and mergers of departments have meant a loss of more than 100 clinical academic posts. By 2003, according to CHDDS, our,
	"dental schools were operating at the lowest staffing levels for more than a decade".
	Add to that the potential retirement time-bomb, to which my noble friend Lady Gardner referred, with a third of the clinical academics in dentistry being between the ages of 46 and 55, and a further 20 per cent being over the age of 56, and we have to start asking some uncomfortable questions about how the Government will accommodate the 170 new undergraduates a year without compromising the quality of teaching and research. Will the creation of a new dental school jeopardise existing schools?
	Last year, the Chief Dental Officer called for a,
	"general and concerted effort . . . to make academic dentistry an attractive career again".
	In March 2005, a report by a committee chaired by Dr Mark Walport, chairman of the Wellcome Trust, considered how junior doctors could pursue a research career. The report also identifies the underlying problems that have given rise to the,
	"perilous state of academic medicine and dentistry in the UK".
	It highlights the lack of a clear route of entry and transparent career structure; the lack of flexibility in the balance of clinical and academic training; and a shortage of properly structured and supported posts on completion of training. One of the recommendations is for the creation of a cohort of new blood senior lectureships, jointly owned and properly funded.
	As my noble friend Lady Knight clearly stated, funding is at the heart of all future development. Currently, dental school funding comes from the NHS and the higher education funding councils. Three-quarters of clinical lecturer posts in dentistry are funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. That is heavily bureaucratic and depends on the research assessment exercise.
	Dentistry fared well in the previous exercise in 2001; two dental schools had the highest rating of 5*, five rated 5, five rated 4 and two rated 3A. But that does not always result in the best funding and does not appear to recognise the teaching and clinical pressures on dental teaching and research staff. Nor does it favour collaborative research, which surely has to be in all our best interests.
	Clinical academics carry out wide-ranging research; they teach and are responsible for treating patients and providing specialist services. In dentistry, they are also front-line, closely supervising their students, who are providing primary dental care throughout their training. Yet, very little funding comes from the NHS—just 15 per cent. Because the rest of the funding comes from the funding councils, dental academics are judged on their research output, where they are compared with non-clinical scientists who do not have the pressures of treating patients. This has led my honourable friend Dr Andrew Murrison to say that,
	"the research assessment exercise appears to be sounding the death knell of dental academia".
	There is no doubt that the UK's dental research is internationally recognised. The General Dental Council sees research as essential to future developments in dentistry and sees it as underpinning dental education. The Government should be under no illusion about the present threat to the future of research into dental disease in this country.
	I wonder therefore, if the Government have considered the possibility of looking again at how dental research is funded and might think about additional dedicated funding in the next allocations to the research councils.
	A visit to the dentist is no longer the thing of fear and unavoidable pain which we all remember as children. When so much can now be done to ensure that as a child grows up and grows old it will be with healthy teeth for life—what a tragedy it would be if a lack of a rewarding career structure and a lack of funding now failed the sheer excellence of dental research in this country.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising the important issue of dental research tonight and I join her and others in paying tribute to the work of dental academics and the high quality research and teaching that they undertake.
	The other day we debated the whole issue of the Government's reforms to NHS dentistry. I do not propose to go over that ground again other than to say that we do realise that the full benefits of our measures to improve access to dental care will need also to ensure that we maintain a programme of research into both oral health promotion and dental treatment.
	A number of noble Lords have cited examples of good quality dental research that have informed public policy. Let me add another. Until recently it was the practice to extract all impacted wisdom teeth at considerable pain and discomfort to the patients involved. Then the National Institute for Clinical Excellence advised, on the basis of recently completed research, that impacted wisdom teeth do not automatically decay or cause painful eruptions. NICE set guidelines on the symptoms which indicated that the removal of teeth was required and as a result the number of wisdom teeth extracted has dropped by two thirds. That is a very good practical example of the way dental research has improved public policy on dental care.
	I would like to say a little bit about what the Government is doing to sustain a relevant, scientifically rigorous programme of research in this particular area. First, there is the NHS national R&D programme on primary dental care. This programme was given a budget of £5 million; 48 studies were approved—the first started in 1998 and the last is due to finish this year. That programme has included a systematic review of skill-mix in dentistry to produce a comprehensive review of the skills and circumstances of employment of auxiliaries in dentistry. There has also been an evaluation of the effectiveness of dental treatment in children's primary teeth and an evaluation of a model system for active prevention in the NHS general dental services. This has identified how high street dentists can complement the treatment service they provide with greater emphasis on oral health education.
	Alongside that programme the health technology assessment programme has recently funded two projects related to dental health, including a study of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of routine dental checks. The result informed advice published by NICE last October that, instead of recalling virtually all patients at six month intervals, dentists should determine the interval by assessment of each individual patient's disease level. For most patients, recall is unlikely to be required more frequently than every 18 months. Again, this is another good example that dental research is alive and well and informing public policy in this particular area.
	There is also the research capacity development programme which is funding six research fellowships at a total cost of some £2.6 million. These provide individuals from PhD to career scientist level with the opportunity to develop their research skills.
	These fellowships are building the UK's capacity to undertake the research needed to provide the evidence base for dentistry. The current programme includes award holders working on the prevention of dental caries in young children, the early detection of oral cancer, and the options for administering conscious sedation to patients as an alternative to a general anaesthetic.
	This programme is also contributing to the funding of the Manchester-based National Primary Care R&D Centre. Within the centre the Manchester Dental School is receiving departmental funding of £225,000 per annum from 2004–07 to support an oral health unit, a virtual centre for improving oral health and a fluoridation information and research centre.
	I cite all these because to have heard the debate this evening one would imagine that the Government was putting no money whatsoever into dental research. There is a flourishing programme of dental research going on even as we speak which is producing research reports which inform our public policy.
	The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research. The MRC does not normally allocate funds to particular topics, as research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. However, in 2003–04 the MRC spent £1.3 million on oral health-related research. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) also funds support for the research infrastructure in higher education that contributes towards dental research.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he is telling us, but perhaps I could interject with a small question. I am told that the funding model used by HEFCE for calculating existing funded student numbers has been based on the 1990 intake, therefore those figures are 15 years old. Is he aware that perhaps there has been a backlog? I know that the Minister would wish to overcome any such problem but it worries some of us.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I intended to come to the issue of HEFCE and funding for teaching places but I was illustrating how the Government have funded a flourishing research programme. As I understood the noble Baroness, she suggested that mediocre sums of money were available for research and came close to suggesting that research opportunities might be drying up. I was illustrating that there is actually quite a strong programme. I shall come shortly to the issue of how we fund programmes for placements in dental schools.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, talked about the IQE system. We have worked with the General Dental Council to accelerate the IQE process within one year. I mentioned in the debate the other day the action taken to accelerate that programme, again with government money.
	Noble Lords raised the issue of clinical academic staffing levels in UK medical and dental schools. We accept the recent report of the Council of Deans of Dental Schools, which showed a decline in the number of clinical academics working in dental schools. That decline was from 474 in 2003 to 444 in 2004. I accept that that is a worrying reduction, but it must be kept in perspective. I remind noble Lords that as a Government we are opening dental schools not closing them. That is the context in which we set out our policy.
	I am pleased to say that HEFCE is to review its baseline in connection with the expansion of dental education. That is a direct response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree.
	We are embarking upon the biggest programme of investment in dental education since the inception of the NHS. Additional recurring funding, rising to £29 million by 2010–11, has been allocated to provide for 170 additional undergraduate training places from October 2005. The expansion will be supported by new capital investment of £20 million in each of the four years 2005–06 to 2008–09. That additional investment in dental schools will improve the working environment and career prospects of dental academics.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in setting up the new dental school we have established a joint implementation group—it rejoices by the name of JIG—comprising the Department of Health and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It manages the Government's programme for expansion of dental education. JIG invited all higher education institutions in England to make expressions of interest in having a new dental school by 26 May. JIG evaluated the bids at its meeting on 22 June and the short-listed respondents will shortly be asked to submit a full business case and to make a presentation to JIG later in the year. We are going through that process in partnership with HEFCE.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, also mentioned satellite dental schools. The details of the expansion are still being considered by JIG. Already medical and dental schools teach students in outreach facilities—for example, large dental practices—in the community. One option for JIG would be to build on that pattern of provision. I cannot give any more firm information than that.
	Alongside this, the joint Department of Health/DfES Strategic Learning and Research Advisory Group for Health and Social Care has developed a plan for the educator and researcher workforce across all the professions in health and social care—not just dentists. This is being taken forward, along with the Walport report which a number of noble Lords have described.
	The Walport report will itself take forward the recommendations with the Department for Health and other people in the research community. Its recommendations can be grouped into four sections, each addressing the key stages of a clinician's career—namely medical school; foundation programme; specialist training; and consultant/general practitioner grades. Proposals for each of these career grades are made separately for academic dentists. In a former incarnation, I announced, when the Walport report was published in March, a small element of funding to contribute towards the first stage of establishing training fellowships during the specialist training phase. That funding will begin shortly, and work is going on within Government to take forward a fuller programme for implementing the Walport recommendations.
	We recognise that there are issues here that have to be addressed, but it would be wrong to suggest that there is not a flourishing programme of dental research, as I have indicated. We are on track to expand our dental schools and to put the money into developing the infrastructure that will support those schools through improved career prospects for dental academics.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.24 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.24 pm.]

Road Safety Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 77:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR INDICATING SPEED RESTRICTIONS
	In section 85 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) Where a road is subject to a speed limit under section 84, regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) shall provide that at least one prescribed traffic sign would always be within sight of a driver if there was no other vehicle on his side of the road.""

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 77, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83.
	On these occasions when we debate road safety matters, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, normally moves an amendment to provide for 30 miles per hour repeater signs on restricted roads. Equally predictably, the Minister resists his amendment. I suspect there are two reasons for that. First, the total cost of doing so could be very high; secondly, the Minister will desire to retain the principle of Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1984, which provides for a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on restricted roads. Repeater signs showing 30 miles per hour would undermine the principle of Section 81.
	But I am not convinced that a high proportion of drivers are aware of the principle of Section 81. I am suggesting that where a road is not a restricted road and it has street lights, the driver must always be able to see the next repeater sign but not necessarily to read it.
	When driving along a road that has street lights I often have a fright because I suddenly realise that I do not know what the correct speed limit is at that point even though I know the road very well. If my amendment was agreed to and I was driving along a road that could be restricted but I saw a repeater sign, I would know that it was not restricted and that the speed limit would be at least 40 miles an hour. In any case, it would not be long before I could read the repeater sign and I could be confident that I was not exceeding the speed limit.
	On the other hand, if I was driving along a faster rural road with street lights it would be out of the question for it to be restricted, but what would be the speed limit? My amendment would deal with that problem because I would quickly see the repeater sign.
	Part of the A1 near Sandy has street lights. Presumably there is an accident hazard there and the road is lit to reduce the number of accidents. This is very welcome. But the speed limit starts at 60 miles per hour and then, presumably when the authorities judge that there is an even higher accident risk, the speed limit is reduced to 50 miles per hour. I am very happy to have that advice as to what is the appropriate speed to drive at because otherwise I might tank along at 70 miles per hour—so I am grateful for the advice—but you can go an awfully long way without seeing a repeater sign. On one occasion I counted 12 lampposts before I saw another repeater sign.
	I am suggesting that you should always be able to see the next repeater sign but not necessarily be able to read it. This would make it much easier to comply with speed limits where there are lampposts. I beg to move.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which are grouped with Amendment No. 77. The first amendment deals with the issue of speed limits in villages. I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee in arguing the case for 30 miles per hour speed limits in built-up areas. I believe we would all agree that the arguments are very well known.
	Incidentally, I do not know whether noble Lords have seen the department's latest advert which I saw in a cinema last night. It shows a young child, who is dead because the vehicle which hit her was travelling at 40 miles per hour. It then goes on to explain that the child would have had a good chance of survival had the vehicle which hit her been travelling at 30 miles per hour. It is an extremely powerful and moving argument.
	I do not believe we need to dwell today on the case for a 30 miles per hour limit in villages. At the launch of the Government's Road Safety Strategy in April 2001, the Prime Minister said that 30 miles per hour should be the norm in villages. So, in a sense, the amendments and the debate today relate to the process by which we achieve this and not to the limit itself.
	I speak on the issue because when I was first elected a county councillor, in Suffolk, we became the first county in the country to introduce 30 miles per hour speed limits in all villages. That came about because many of us who campaigned in the 1993 elections were struck by the repeated requests, from right around the county, for 30 miles per hour speed limits. These were from rural communities who felt that their quality of life was being blighted by traffic which was, quite legitimately, travelling through their villages at 60 miles per hour.
	So, in 1993, the incoming Suffolk administration determined that all villages who wanted to have a speed limit would have one—but in looking into that, we realised just what a highly intensive, slow and expensive process it was going to be. The system of consultation—making and advertising the orders, placing the signs, and so on—is, indeed, extremely time-consuming. We decided to organise the county into batches; in that way, we could get some economies of scale through the process. However, we did realise that it would be very expensive, and at that time local authorities were beginning to be really cash-strapped.
	At that point, we hit upon a wheeze which I can now explain to noble Lords, since it does not matter any more. At the time, it rather saved our bacon. An on-the-ball county treasurer spotted that the mechanism for funding local government at that time, the SSA, was, in part at least, down to how many miles of urban road we had in our county. For those purposes, an urban road was defined as one which had a 30 miles per hour speed limit on it. So, in Suffolk's case, we accelerated the programme—and it paid for itself extremely quickly. Unfortunately, they caught on to that one, but we had managed to get ahead of the game. All of that explains, I suspect, why nowadays fewer than one in five local authorities have a policy similar to Suffolk's, where all villages have speed limits.
	The new policy, then—as proposed in the amendment—would do a great deal to reduce the current bureaucracy and inconsistency involved in determining 30 miles per hour speed limits on a case-by-case basis. It is not removing local choice because locals have no choice now; they have a 60 miles per hour limit unless they have street lighting, or unless the local authority is prepared to go through the process. The change is simply in the default speed limit. We are saying that in the absence of street lighting, or being signed otherwise, that the current 60 miles per hour limit is inappropriate and should be changed.
	The second amendment to which I wish to speak, Amendment No. 79, concerns speed limits in country lanes. On the basis that it is unusual to have primary legislation in Parliament on road safety—this is the first we have had for quite some time—we should take the opportunity to address the problem of rural roads, particularly single-carriageway roads. I noticed that in a reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on 28 June that, of the 3,508 people killed in road accidents in 2003, 2,065 were killed on rural roads. That is simply not acceptable; it is the one area where the situation is getting worse, not better.
	There is a coalition, from the Motorists' Forum through to CPRE and Transport 2000, which is much in favour of tackling the problems of speeding on country lanes. They feel that the current limit of 60 miles per hour on many rural roads is simply too fast. The problem has always been to find a way in which one could reduce the speed limit on a country lane that would be acceptable to motorists while not filling the countryside with clutter.
	The beauty of the amendment which has been tabled in my name and that of other noble Lords is that it would enable the speed limit to be reduced to 40 on narrow lanes without white lines, which would be a more appropriate speed limit. A major campaign would clearly be needed for drivers to understand the new limit—but once that is done, we would have no need for signs throughout the country.

The Earl of Dundee: Within this group I shall address Amendment No. 80, which seeks to place a duty on local authorities to produce an annual report on speed limits. Speed—whether excess speed; breaking the posted speed limit, or unwise speed; driving too fast for the conditions—is a contributory factor in one in three road accidents. It is an even greater contributor to fatal accidents. For that reason, both the Department for Transport and local authorities have been undertaking advertising and educational campaigns, most notably under the "speed kills" heading, to persuade drivers to change their behaviour.
	Local authorities are responsible for about 96 per cent of road lengths in England. It is their responsibility to consider the setting of sensible speed limits on their roads, bearing in mind the guidance from the department set out in the soon-to-be revised circular. Amendment No. 80 would place a duty on local authorities to report on the setting of speed limits on those roads for which they currently have responsibility. It would require them to look at the limits currently on those roads and whether they should be changed in any way. It would be a further encouragement to local authorities therefore to adopt a strategic approach to the setting of limits.
	The Minister may say that local authorities already undertake this kind of analysis. That is certainly true. What does not seem to be the case, however, is the requirement to provide information for central government to enable the department to monitor the development of lower speed roads and see the effect of these on casualty reduction. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give a positive response to this amendment to persuade local highway authorities to take further action to reduce speeds on their roads.

Lord Lyell: My noble friend Lady Gardner is about to rise, but I looked at this series of amendments and I am happy that they are all grouped together because I am very interested in Amendment No. 77 in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee. My neck of the woods is Scotland. I understand that, in spite of all the devolved activities, this matter applies—my noble friend Lord Dundee tells me that it does. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is beaming as he has already expressed great knowledge of Scotland, so I presume that the matter must apply to Kirriemuir as much as it applies to Alloa or anywhere else. I have one question for the noble Baroness about villages, although I have an idea what she means.
	In my county of Angus and in my particular area in Scotland we have very little or no lighting. As far as concerns Amendment No. 77, the speed limit has been extended by about 400 yards beyond the last light and the last house. As you drive along that road for 200 yards you cannot see that there is a limit. There are smart-alec police and safety people, "You should know that you should go at 10 miles an hour and you will not run over a snail", and you lose your licence. That is fine because you should have known the limit. But we can do better than that and I think that Amendment No. 77 is the answer.
	I looked at national speed limits for villages, as so well described by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, but can she or anyone else please explain why subsection (2) of Amendment No. 78 states:
	"A 'village' for the purposes of this Act shall be a settlement of 20 or more houses . . . along more than 600 metres".
	Should that not be "less than 600 metres", because more than 600 metres would mean that there could be 19 houses in 600 metres and the 20th could be another kilometre away and that would classify, according to subsection (2), as a village. That is for the purposes of the law—for me, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and others. We would lose our licences because that would be laid down in law. I have an idea what a village is, as I suspect Suffolk County Council does. I suspect that Angus Council also has a very good idea of what a village is. If the noble Baroness narrowed down the definition, we might understand it. I can quite understand 30 miles per hour. That ought to be well signed so that people understand what they are about.
	We then come to Amendment No. 79. I am afraid that I did not hurry along to Clause 27 of the 1984 Act when looking at Item No. 1(i) and Item No. 1(ii) in the table. What are these roads supposed to be? The noble Baroness spoke about country lanes, but there again we have a problem. What is a country lane?
	I can take the noble Baroness to Scotland; I can take her to Wester Ross. I have just attended a dinner dance there with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. Huge tracts of road have been paid for by the European Union. They display the lovely European sign—blue with yellow stars. They do not have white lines down the middle of them. Perhaps not I or others will be going along them, but foreigners. I was up there two years ago and was overtaken by German camper vans. I was doing 60 mph—not that I was worried about the satellite or the speed cameras. People were overtaking me, quite safely, at considerably higher speeds. I worry just a trifle about blanket or semi-blanket limits for country lanes or rural lanes.
	Can the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and her colleagues who have put down the amendment think, first, about what is a "village" and, secondly, a country lane. I have an idea what a country lane might be in Suffolk—I have driven a few miles in that county—but there are huge tracts of northern England or Scotland to which this legislation will apply. If people are driving at 45 or 50 mph on a completely empty road, should they be hounded off the road and have points on their licence, with the prospect of being off the road for a year if they do it twice or three times? I worry just a little about that.
	Of course I understand the need to slow down in what the noble Baroness called "villages". I too have seen her figures of 30 to 40 mph on television and I am interested in them. Having been involved in a skiing crash at 30 mph, I would not like to be struck by a car at that speed. Had it been at 40 mph, I would have been more seriously injured.
	The noble Baroness has made a good effort, but can she explain "village"? I ask her to check "more than". I think that the amendment should state "less than 600 metres". Did she intend that? One cannot say that it is just a misprint. I am sure that those who drafted it took good care.
	If the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, could explain also Item Nos. 1(i) and 1(ii), I would be very grateful because I do not want to lose my licence. Even the noble Baroness admitted that before she imposed 30 mph limits in Suffolk, people were going, legitimately, at 60 mph. If that was legitimate and not dangerous, I think my point is made.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Something can be legitimate, but still be dangerous. That is indeed the point. There is already a blanket limit of 60 mph on rural roads of any type at all. Clearly, there are roads where that speed limit is simply not appropriate. I can only say to the noble Lord that if there were not a safety issue here, we would not have 2,500 people dying on rural roads every year. There is unarguably a safety problem on these roads. I am afraid that I have very little sympathy with anyone who says otherwise.

Lord Lyell: The noble Baroness said "clearly". I will take her to places—I have referred to them—where there is clearly no danger whatever. Perhaps I may say politely, in Forfar Athletic terms, that it is one-all.

Lord Hanningfield: I have a lot of time for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she is a great defender of local government, but I am quite surprised by this amendment. Suffolk County Council has taken the decision to do that. I represent nine villages on Essex County Council. All of them have speed limits of 30 mph, but we took those decisions in those villages because that is what we decided we wanted in them. We are looking at 20 mph limits beside some schools in those villages. I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the Liberal Democrats, who I thought believed in localism, want to impose something nationally which should be left to local communities. My local community has decided to impose limits and I have supported it. We should not do it nationally; we should leave it to local people to decide these matters according to circumstances in their villages. So I am very surprised that the Liberal Democrats want this.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Local authorities currently have no choice about the 60 mph speed limit, which is the default speed limit. We are not suggesting taking away local authorities' choice, but if the default were reduced to 30 mph in villages and 40 mph on rural roads without white lines, local authorities could if they wished keep it at 60 mph. Their choice will not be removed; it is the default position that will be altered.
	The problem at present is that many communities and local authorities want to reduce the speed limit but the process is bureaucratic, expensive and time-consuming. It is one thing for a village to make a choice not to have a speed limit and quite another for it to be told when it wants one that, because of the bureaucracy, the council cannot afford it and it must wait.
	Leaving the matter to local choice addresses the point made by the noble Lord earlier. In country lanes where 60 mph is a perfectly reasonable speed limit, it can be left at that. The local authority could change the regulation in its own area, but the default for many roads that are not suitable would then be 40 mph. That is a much more sensible way forward in the eyes of the great coalition of people.

Lord Lyell: The noble Baroness says that that would be sensible. I think that she has made the case for me. She wishes to impose a blanket rule, but local authorities have to go through what she admits is bureaucracy to allow people to drive on roads that are not near a village, but miles away in the open. If I drive at 42 mph my licence will be taken away if the local authority does not go through the bureaucracy.
	We can have a reasonable amendment, as suggested by my noble friend. I am tempted to think that the noble Baroness is suggesting a blanket rule for rural lanes, but what is a rural lane? We could go on like that.

Lord Bradshaw: We should think about this issue very carefully. We have attempted to table simple amendments. My county of Oxfordshire followed Suffolk along the 30 mph road, and there is a limit of 30 mph in all villages in Oxfordshire. The parish councils of each parish decided the boundaries of the village. Some are not what other people desire, but the decision on the boundaries at either end was made by the parish councils. Local decision-making applied.
	To get round the bureaucratic tangle to which my noble friend referred in her introduction, we should like the normal arrangement to be a 30 mph limit in villages unless a village decided otherwise. The village would opt out rather than opt in.
	The position is similar on the country lanes amendment. We have some experience in Oxfordshire, where we have introduced limits for quiet lanes. They are single carriageway roads—they are actually one-vehicle width roads with passing places—where 60 mph is a ridiculous speed because every so often you meet another vehicle coming the other way. There are many other similar roads that unfortunately are used as rat runs, much to the annoyance of the people who live on them.
	Again, we want to say to local authorities that the default limit is 40 mph, but if they consider that it should be 60 mph the simple expedient is to put a white line on the road because it is considered wide enough for vehicles to go at the faster speed.
	We want to start from a simple position and then allow a local authority, a parish or district council to depart from that standing. We want a simple answer to a lot of pressure, which I am sure all noble Lords have had from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which is alarmed at the speed at which people drive on rural roads and through villages. I could take noble Lords to many rural villages where there is huge pressure for the installation of speed cameras because those villages are being cut in half by the speed and volume of the traffic. It is not just a safety issue; it is a severance issue, caused by a growing volume of traffic. People see a speed camera as a means of restoring sanity in the village. They are not anxious to catch motorists, but they want them to slow down when passing through their village.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to 30 mph repeater signs. In a significant number of lit urban areas, there is a case for a repeater sign to be placed either on the road or on a lamp-post at the discretion and even at the expense of a local authority. I know of local authorities that are pleading to have a means of reminding people that even though they are outside a town they are still in a built-up area and still in a 30 mph limit area. I know of places where people are pleading for some relief from vehicles passing through their area at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour.
	I admit that perhaps neither of the new clauses on speed limits that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches propose is perfect. However, they point to a way forward, and one to which many noble Lords have referred. This is probably the only Road Safety Bill that we shall have in this Parliament. Is there no way in which some relief can be given to those who live in rural areas and on the outskirts of towns during our discussions on the Bill? I rest my case and await the Minister's response.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: As someone who has lived most of my life in rural areas, I support Amendment No. 78. I have lived on one of the rat runs described by the noble Lord and am aware of the difficulty that that causes. When the Government published their road safety Strategy, the Prime Minister said that a 30 mph speed limit should be the norm for villages. The amendment would go a long way to achieving what I took to be a commitment along those lines.
	The amendment is supported by the Safer Streets Coalition, but that body sees it only as a first step towards adopting a default 20 miles per hour limit. I raise that issue on that body's behalf. However, as we are not considering a 20 mph limit today but a 30 mph limit, I am pleased to support the amendment.

Lord Berkeley: I support the amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, although I do not wish to spend too much time discussing them.
	Some noble Lords have mentioned examples of places where they believe such restrictions are inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to Wester Ross. The last time that I was in Wester Ross, I seem to remember, every road was a single track with passing places. If you put a white line down the middle, you would have to drive with a wheel on either side of it as the roads were so narrow. If motorways have been built there now and the relevant authorities have not bothered to put a white line down the middle of them, white lines would be the answer to enable motorists to travel at higher speeds. However, there are many other examples of places where it is unsafe to walk or even to cycle. When one thinks of country lanes one tends to think of high hedges, although that is not always the case. If you are walking along a road why should you have to jump on to a wet verge or, even worse, into a ditch because a car is travelling too fast? You have as much right to be there as the car.
	We need to start considering seriously lower speed limits on certain roads where that is appropriate and for local authorities to set those speed limits. We should at least make it easier for local authorities to set those limits as, otherwise, people will be marooned in villages in their houses or flats. They cannot get out as they cannot walk anywhere or they are frightened to do so.
	I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 82, which stands in my name and is grouped with the amendments that we are discussing. It might be thought odd to table an amendment to introduce regulations to cover speed cameras within two years of Royal Assent. Many noble Lords may think that there are enough already.
	I have done a bit of research on this, and I have been told that there are no regulations whatever, just various circulars and instructions from the Department for Transport. Given the amount of time that we have talked about speed cameras today and during the previous Committee day, it would be good for the Government to be able to rationalise what is done with speed cameras; where they are put; and how many hundreds of people have to be killed at a site before a camera can be put up. They could leave it to the local authority or partnership to put them up anywhere, which I would prefer. Speed cameras were all grey until Mr Spellar said that they had to be yellow. So they are yellow now, and my noble friend the Minister has explained why, which is perfectly valid, even though I might disagree with him. As there are no regulations and given the fact that technology is moving fast, it would be good to have regulations so everyone knows where he stands.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have half a sympathy with Amendment No. 77. It sounds good, but I would not want it to reach such a point that signs proliferated and there were too many of them. The answer to that would be to have signs on the road, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. Signs painted on the road are easier, particularly as we are talking about areas that are lit. That point has been made. When one is driving, they are much easier, as the road is in vision all the time. A repeat sign painted on the road would be less expensive to maintain and would be clear and helpful.
	On Amendment No. 78, I puzzled about a village in a different way from my noble friend Lord Lyell. It seems to me that there is no maximum number of houses for a village. A major metropolis could be labelled as a village. A definition of "village" is necessary. The amendment says "20 or more houses". There might be blocks of flats—which would not be houses, but dwellings—and it could be a built-up area.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I can help the noble Baroness on that point. At the moment, if a community has street lighting, it automatically has a speed limit. So, in the scenario to which the noble Baroness referred, I cannot imagine a situation where a large settlement would have flats and so on but would not have street lighting. At the moment, if a community has no street lighting, the default speed limit is 60 mph, regardless of how big it is.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Baroness. I was making the technical point that I thought that that definition needed to be clarified.
	I am sorry to say that I do not agree with Amendment No. 80, tabled by my noble friend Lord Dundee. Local authorities are so busy doing reports on pretty well everything all the time that they should have discretion on whether to take on the burden of an annual report if there is a local demand for it. I am always reluctant to give extra burdens to local authorities. We legislate all the time and push work on to local authorities, but we never give them the money to do what we have asked them to do and the cost goes to the council tax payer.
	I thought that Amendment No. 82 was very surprising, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said. I did not understand that there were no regulations already. It is important that there should be regulations. Since we started on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has repeatedly made the point that speed cameras are supposed to be safety cameras. As for Marlow Hill in Wycombe, I have now seen photos, and I realise that I know it. It is an unbelievable hill. It is hard to believe that people can ask drivers not to wish to put their foot on the accelerator to try to get up it. At the moment, it is apparently the local authority that has the right to decide what speed to put where. That needs to be considered. I have no further comments.

Viscount Simon: Amendment No. 78 states:
	"There shall be a national speed limit of 30 mph for villages".
	That is as far as I intend to speak on the amendment, but it might raise the temperature slightly if I recount the experience of friends in whose village, where the road had a white line along the centre, the national speed limit of 60 mph was reduced to 30 mph. One day, the lady of the house was gardening outside and saw someone ignoring the 30 mph limit, so she put up three fingers. The driver obviously disagreed and thought that the limit should have been 20 mph, because he stuck up two fingers.

Baroness Crawley: We have had an invigorating debate, given the time of night. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I take a little time in my reply, as each amendment in the group puts a slightly different aspect on speed issues.
	Regarding Amendment No. 77, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I understand the concerns that might arise from drivers being unaware of the speed limit. However, I hope to show that the amendment is unnecessary. Local traffic authorities can make speed limit orders under Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware. Provisions relating to the placing of speed limit signs are contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. As the power is already available to make provisions relating to repeater signs, primary legislation would not be needed, should it be necessary to change the repeater sign requirements.
	Those regulations provide that repeater signs are placed at regular intervals along all roads. The only exceptions are street lit roads, where a 30 mph speed limit is in force, or unlit roads, where the national speed limit is in force. The national speed limit is 60 mph on single carriageways and 70 mph on duel carriageways.
	I acknowledge that the presence of street lighting might be an odd way to indicate speed limits. However, in practice, it has the merit of simplicity. If there are street lights and no signs to the contrary, the speed limit is 30 mph. That has been law for more than 70 years and drivers are required to learn that to pass their driving test. That said, guidance on good practice on the placing and size of repeater signs exists in the form of Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/95. That is advisory, rather than mandatory, and allows local traffic authorities greater flexibility when placing repeater signs and overcomes the situation where signs that are placed marginally too far apart make the speed limit unenforceable. Ultimately, if local traffic authorities placed repeater signs, as has been advised, a driver should be fully aware of the speed limit that is in force on any given road.

Lord Bradshaw: I wish to be absolutely clear. Is the Minister saying that the present statutory instruments allow a local traffic authority, if it wishes, to erect signs within an area where there are street lights or put them on the road surface, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardener of Parkes, said? Is it advisory, whereby the authorities can do that, or are they prohibited from doing that? If that were the case, we would seek to move an amendment that would allow them to do that if they wished.

Baroness Crawley: I understand from the Box that it is not the case that they could change within an SI.

Lord Bradshaw: So the SI mandates them against providing repeater signs or signs that would remind motorists, even on a long stretch of road, that they are still within a 30 mph limit, if that road is lit. I must be absolutely clear, because that would then lead us on to the question of an amendment we might wish to move, following what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, to allow local authorities to do that if they wished. I am not seeking to take the power from local government, but to make it available to local government, should they wish, in particular circumstances, to apply it.

Baroness Crawley: I understand that the position as set out by the noble Lord is the correct one. That said, guidance on good practice in placing and sizes of repeater signs exists in the form of Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/95.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is content, I will now move on to Amendment No. 78.

Lord Bradshaw: I am content. However, I represent two settlements on the county council. One has no street lights, but has repeater signs all around the village. They cannot be seen in the dark, but they are there. From the other place I am inundated with residents' complaints about speeding. A child was knocked off her bicycle and almost killed there last week. The place is about two miles long with street lights, and there is no repeater at all. Even the parish council, which would wish to do so, is not allowed to put up any signs advising people that they are still in a 30 mph limit. I find that incredible. If it is the situation, it is one with which I am not content.

Baroness Crawley: That is the situation.
	Moving on to Amendment No. 78, the Government's road safety strategy recognises the problems in rural areas where inappropriate speed is a contributory factor to many accidents and injuries. We acknowledge in particular that rural settlements deserve the same protection from vehicle speeds as those experienced in urban areas, a point well made during the debate. It is therefore already government policy for villages to be subject to a 30 mph speed limit wherever that is deemed to be appropriate.
	Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/04 provides guidance to traffic authorities on how this can be achieved. However, it is unlikely that such a limit will be appropriate for all villages—for example, those located on roads with a strategic or through-traffic function. That is why we favour the current regime, which provides traffic authorities with the flexibility to be able to set an appropriate speed limit through villages on their roads, having given full and proper consideration to what is the right limit based on all needs and local requirements. In our view, as well as improving safety, this also increases respect for, and compliance with, speed limits.
	I hope, in view of the fact that it is already government policy for villages to be subject to a 30 mph speed limit where appropriate, and of the fact that traffic authorities already have the necessary powers to set an appropriate speed limit through villages, that noble Lords will withdraw this amendment.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Will the Minister accept that the term "government policy", with all due respect, is completely meaningless in this context? The Government have not altered any of the regulatory framework within which local authorities have to operate to create a speed limit. It is still down to the local authority to decide if the limit is right, so government policy does not enter into it.
	On the question of "strategic routes", villages on fairly important routes are, in many cases, exactly the places where they need the speed limit most. The volume of traffic is such that it is more dangerous and has a greater impact on the quality of life. Under the terms of a scheme related to our amendment, imperfectly worded though it is, a local authority would still be able to opt out a village. Will the Minister accept that there are many more villages on small roads than there are on strategic roads?

Baroness Crawley: I have repeatedly stated that the Government are in favour of a 30 mph limit in those circumstances. However, whether or not the noble Baroness wishes to hear it called "government policy", the Government would want local authorities to have flexibility to make what they see as the appropriate decisions. I am afraid therefore that there is not a meeting of minds on this issue between myself and the noble Baroness.

Lord Bradshaw: That contrasts greatly with what the Minister said to me about repeater signs. I ask simply that local authorities should have flexibility. The other point is that we want to see the position altered so that the policy would normally be 30 mph and the default position would be the higher limit. In reversing that, we are making it easier to set the 30 mph limit but, by exception, accepting that a local authority is the arbiter in deciding whether 30, 40, 50 or 60 is the appropriate speed through a village.

Baroness Crawley: I understand the point about the default mechanism, but we are not persuaded that it is the way to move ahead.
	Amendment No. 79 seeks to insert an additional category of road into Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The intention is to lower the speed limit from 50 mph to 40 mph on single carriageway roads without a central white line for passenger vehicles which exceed 3.05 tonnes, or are adapted to carrying more than eight passengers, or are drawing a trailer; and for goods vehicles which do not exceed 7.5 tonnes. This would align the speed limit for these classes of vehicles with that of HGVs which are already restricted to 40 mph on these roads.
	This is a complex issue, as has been brought out in the debate. We believe that it will need more careful consideration in order to avoid potentially imposing additional restrictions for potentially little benefit. On the face of it, the proposal might appear to be attractive from the point of view of improving road safety. However, it would be wrong to reach the conclusion that speed limits should be reduced without, for example, first having some clear understanding about what proportion of accidents on these roads involving these vehicles may be related to inappropriate speed.
	That information is not currently to hand and no doubt other factors will also need to be taken into consideration before a firm decision can be made on the merits of the amendment. However, I should be happy for officials to engage in a separate discussion with Members of the Committee about the amendment outside the consideration of the Bill. If after further discussion the proposal were to be accepted, the necessary legislative amendments could be made through statutory instrument. I hope that in view of that undertaking the amendment will be withdrawn.
	On Amendment No. 80 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we come to a call for an annual report on speed limits. I thank him for setting out his reasons for the amendment. However, I am still a little unclear as to whether the report that he wishes to see is intended to cover the trunk road network for which the Highways Agency is traffic authority.
	The local authorities' responsibilities in respect of road safety go much wider than speed limits. They are already locally accountable in a number of ways, as the noble Earl suggested. For example, Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a duty on local authorities to carry out studies into road accidents in their area and to carry out programmes of measures designed to promote road safety. That is done through a combination of engineering schemes, education, training and publicity.
	Local highway authorities in England are already required to prepare and submit five-year local transport plans. They are also required to prepare annual progress reports setting out progress against those local plans and targets.
	The department's guidance on the second round local transport plans, covering the period 2006–11, also now requires authorities to produce and to publish a speed management strategy as part of their overall approach to delivering safe roads in their area.
	Traffic authorities determine local speed limits having regard to guidance issued by the department. We have recently consulted on updated guidance which is designed to improve clarity and deliver greater consistency of local speed limits across the country. The updated guidance, which will be published later this year, is intended to form the basis for the local speed management strategies.
	Local authorities already keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances. The updated guidance on setting local speed limits is, however, eagerly awaited by traffic authorities and can therefore be expected to lead to more formal reviews as it is implemented on the ground. It would seem appropriate that local authorities' intentions for reviewing speed limits in accordance with the new guidance could usefully be part of their speed management strategies.
	To conclude on the amendment, local authorities already therefore have a number of other important priorities, which include work in relation to speed management. We would much rather that the time that might have been spent on compiling a speed limit report, as set out in the amendment, was spent on implementing further road safety measures that will help to reduce casualties.
	Amendment No. 82, tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, calls for regulation of cameras. Noble Lords will know that most speed cameras are now operated under the national safety camera programme, which requires the safety camera partnerships to operate under the strict rules set out in the department's The Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera programme for England and Wales 2005–06.
	National safety partnerships consist of local authorities, the police, the magistrates' court, the Highways Agency where appropriate and other key stakeholders, including the local health authority, to ensure that the safety camera programme operates in the most effective way.
	Among other things, the handbook stipulates the rules on important matters such as the process to be followed in order that netting off—cost recovery—is allowable; camera deployment criteria; signing; and conspicuity rules—visibility rules.
	The content of the handbook of rules has been reviewed and strengthened annually since the programme was first established in 2000 to ensure that the programme remains effective. Furthermore, individual cameras are also kept under review by safety camera partnerships as part of their operational case submissions. Camera partnerships must already fully comply with the statutory requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regard to speed limits and camera signage. Further regulation of the rules as proposed in Amendment No. 82, would reduce the flexibility to develop the programme to ensure that it continues to be effective in future. For example, it would make it more difficult readily to change deployment criteria—where to place the camera—or rectify any problems, should the need arise.
	Amendment No. 83, would insert a new clause entitled,
	"Traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions at regular intervals".
	I understand the concern that may arise from drivers being unaware of the speed limit. However I hope to show that the amendment is unnecessary.
	Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires the Secretary of State and local traffic authorities to erect and maintain prescribed or authorised traffic signs to ensure that adequate guidance is given to drivers regarding the speed limit on any road. Under that section, no signs are required where a road subject to a 30 mile per hour speed limit is lit by lamps not more than 200 yards apart. The amendment would be to reverse that position and mean that 30 mile per hour repeater signs would be required on such roads.
	The Secretary of State has power to make directions by statutory instrument for the placing of speed limit signs. Provisions relating to the placing of speed limit signs are contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.
	The TSRGD already provides that repeater signs are placed at regular intervals along all roads. The only exceptions are street-lit roads where a 30 mile an hour speed limit is in force or unlit roads where the national speed limit is in force.
	As I said earlier, Members of the Committee may be of the opinion that the presence of street lighting may be an odd way to indicate a speed limit. However, as I also said earlier, it has the merit of simplicity.
	Furthermore, TSRGD requires that terminal speed limit signs must be placed on both sides of the carriageway at the start and end of a speed limit, including roads with a system of street lighting subject to a 30 mile an hour speed limit, except at a junction with a road subject to a higher speed limit, where only one terminal speed limit sign is required.
	The effect of the amendment would be to place an additional requirement on local traffic authorities to place repeater signs on street-lit roads subject to a 30 mile an hour speed limit. That requirement would significantly increase the number of repeater signs required for our roads. Aside from the sign clutter, which has already been mentioned, and environmental intrusion aspects, there are substantial cost implications related to such a move.
	Local traffic authorities would be expected to fund additional signing. The department would much rather that money was spent introducing proven traffic-calming measures in areas where there is a history of speed related accidents.
	Ultimately, a driver should be fully aware that the presence of street lights indicates a road subject to a 30 mile an hour speed limit, unless signs indicate otherwise.
	In view of that lengthy explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the Minister's detailed reply. I seem to have had something of a bit part myself, even though I initiated the debate.
	A number of wicked supplementaries came to mind for the Minister, but at this late hour I have resisted that temptation. But I am not convinced that the Minister fully understands how difficult it is to comply with speed limits and be aware of the prevailing speed limit. I will read carefully what she said in respect of my and other noble Lords' amendments and, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: As this is such a big group of amendments, perhaps I may just add that the Minister referred to the expense and clutter produced by the plethora of signs which would be required. On the roads concerned the local authorities are buying all sorts of signs which say, "Think", "Reduce your speed", everything except what speed you are supposed to be doing because that is prohibited under the regulations. There are six or seven of these signs which are available to buy. They are fluorescent and can be attached to a lamppost. The one significant piece of information which is missing is to tell you how fast you are allowed to go.
	The Minister is underestimating first, the willingness of local authorities to pay for the 30 mph signs and, secondly, the fact that we have said "shall" in this amendment but it may be more appropriate to insert "may"—that they "may" do it, because that would settle a lot of this argument. We are grateful for what she has said in her answer to Amendment No. 79 about country lanes and we will certainly take the opportunity to discuss the matter with officials before Report, and see whether we can make any progress. For the time being we will not move our amendments, but I am sure that she is well aware that we are anything but satisfied with many of the answers we have received.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 78 to 83A not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 84:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"DRIVER LIABILITY IN COLLISION WITH VULNERABLE ROAD USERS
	(1) This section applies when recompense is being sought by or on behalf of a person who was not a person to whom in the circumstances which give rise to recompense being sought in section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (user of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks) applies, or would apply but for the exceptions from a duty to insure or give security contained in that Act or elsewhere, and the person from whom recompense is being sought is a person to whom section 143 of that Act applies, or would apply but for the exceptions from a duty to insure or give security contained in that Act or elsewhere.
	(2) When this section applies, a court shall find for the person seeking recompense or on whose behalf recompense is sought, unless the person from whom recompense is sought shows that he has no responsibility for any of the circumstances giving rise to recompense being sought.
	(3) The court may make reduction in recompense if in all the circumstances of the case (including the age and any physical, sensory or mental disabilities of the person seeking recompense or on whose behalf recompense is sought) it considers it just to do so and shall in any case not make any reduction in recompense if recompense is sought on behalf of a person under ten years of age at the time of the first event giving rise to recompense being sought."

Lord Berkeley: The amendment concerns driver liability in collisions with more vulnerable road users. It is pretty obvious to say this, but if a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, a cyclist, an equestrian or a disabled person the non-motorised user is much more likely to be injured than the driver. As I said earlier today, the figures are something like you are on average 18 times more likely to be injured if you are not in the vehicle.
	It ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users and their safety. But this is not currently recognised in law. The current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, which is of course often impossible for pedestrians and cyclists when they have been killed or injured.
	My argument is that the law on driver insurance schemes should be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly. In deciding this, the person's mental and physical ability should be taken into account so that groups such as children and people with learning difficulties and disabilities would normally obtain damages in any event. Drivers would not, however, be criminalised under these proposals. These proposals are in line with laws already in place in other European countries.
	Every month or two I take my bicycle to Paris or Brussels on business and I pedal around the cities. I know that you must keep to the right; I can cope with that. My impression is that it is much safer to ride a cycle in those cities than it is in London, where I am used to cycling. Drivers give cyclists more space and give way to them when they have the right of way. I have talked to quite a few cycling groups about the matter, and I am persuaded that the reason for the difference is that drivers in those countries understand that they will be seen to be guilty if they hit a cyclist or pedestrian while driving without due care.
	It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend says, as the amendment would make a major contribution to redressing the balance between the road user in a motorised vehicle and others such as pedestrians and cyclists, who have an equal right to use the road. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: Does the noble Lord's amendment include somebody riding a horse or pony along the road? I must declare an interest, as I have a small rural riding centre, and we are always worried about people driving carelessly and too fast along country lanes.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I said that the amendment would include pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians or disabled persons; in other words, any road user. I imagine that it includes anyone riding any other kind of animal, or perhaps driving a herd of cows or sheep—basically, anything that is not motorised.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course, I share the concerns about vulnerable road users. We insist that motorists have third-party insurance in order to make necessary recompense when they are at fault in an accident, but I cannot see how my noble friend can argue that an innocent motorist should be liable. That seems to destroy the concept on which our law is founded.
	Furthermore, I am not sure that the amendment would encourage road safety. The likelihood is that it would encourage greater recklessness on the part of those who could never in any circumstances be found at fault because they are defined by my noble friend as the innocent party. Instead of the courts being able to look at the incident, take account of all the factors concerned and reach a judgment, a judgment would already have been made against the motorist, in any circumstances, in favour of the other party. I do not think that that is tenable.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for my noble friend's response. The concept of the innocent motorist rather depends on how fast the driver was travelling and whether he was taking due care of the other people on the road. It is interesting that the approach seems to work perfectly well on the Continent. My noble friend did not respond to that. There is no great outcry on the Continent because motorists are proved guilty before they can even protest their innocence. I shall reflect on what my noble friend says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 85:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"CAUSING DEATH OR INJURY BY NEGLIGENT DRIVING
	(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 2A insert—
	"2B CAUSING DEATH OR INJURY BY NEGLIGENT DRIVING
	(1) A person who causes the death of or serious injury to another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle negligently on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
	(2) A person is to be regarded as suffering serious injury if he suffers injury that is life changing or life threatening or both.
	2C MEANING OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING
	(1) A person is to be regarded as driving negligently if he drives without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.
	(2) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) is amended as follows.
	(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert a new entry—
	
		
			  
			 RTA section 2B Causing death or serious injury by negligent driving On indictment 10 years or a fine or both Discretionary Obligatory 3–11""

The Earl of Dundee: The amendment would introduce a new charge of causing death or injury by negligent driving; thereby, it claims to bridge a gap in the law relating to serious driving offences.
	The current pattern of road traffic law in dealing with a death or injury on the roads has been criticised by many as deficient. At present, a death or injury may be followed by one of three criminal charges. First, the most serious one is that of causing death by dangerous driving. It can be tried in the Crown Court and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. In bringing such a charge, the Crown Prosecution Service must demonstrate that the standard of driving by the defendant was far below that expected of a competent driver.
	Secondly, there is the charge of dangerous driving that has resulted in injury but not death. As in the first case, such dangerous driving must be deemed to be far below that expected of a competent driver. The second charge can be tried in either a Crown Court or a magistrates' court. The maximum sentence is two years' imprisonment. The third charge is driving without due care and attention, often referred to as careless driving. That charge can be taken only in a magistrates' court. A sentence cannot include imprisonment, driving disqualification is discretionary, and any fine imposed may not exceed £2,500.
	A Department for Transport research report published in 2002, Dangerous Driving and the Law, followed a series of cases through the court process. It discovered that a number of incidents involving a death on the roads were subsequently treated as cases of careless driving, with far lower penalties ensuing than seemed to be right, given the severity of the offence and of the consequences. The report proposed a new offence—causing death by negligent driving—to fill the perceived justice gap.
	The Government had been reluctant to act on the issue until the publication of a report commissioned by the Home Office. Published in February of this year, A Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving contained proposals to amend the law. The closing date for consultation on the proposals was 6 May. In a debate in Westminster Hall on 21 June, the Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, referred to the intention to publish a summary of the responses received "in due course"—a timescale that could mean almost anything.
	The Government had already indicated their intention to raise the maximum penalty for dangerous driving to five years' imprisonment. The consultation document proposed a new offence of causing death by careless driving. Amendment No. 85 therefore offers the Government an opportunity to write their intentions into the statute book.
	There are, however, two differences. First, the amendment here deliberately uses the word "negligent", rather than "careless". Many crashes involving a death are not accidental. They may not be deliberate—dangerous driving covers that issue—but they involve a lapse of concentration that a careful driver should not experience. The term "negligent" would perhaps fit better than "careless". Secondly, it would introduce the aspect of serious injury. That already applies in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: Last time we had the Committee stage on the Bill, I opposed an amendment proposed by the noble Earl. This time, I am pleased to support him, at least as far as the first part of his amendment goes.
	As the noble Earl said, in Northern Ireland, for a great many years, it has been an offence to cause grievous bodily injury by driving dangerously on a road. The wording is almost identical to that proposed by the noble Earl, with one exception: he uses the words "serious injury", while in Northern Ireland they talk of "grievous bodily injury". Surely, it comes to the same thing.
	It has worked well in Northern Ireland. After all, if you drive so badly that you blind somebody or cause them to be paralysed from the neck down, it ruins their life almost as much as if you had killed them. It is high time that we brought our law into line with Northern Ireland in that respect.
	I am not so sure on the second part of the amendment. In principle, the noble Earl is correct, but the proposed maximum penalty of 10 years is on the high side for negligent driving. At the moment, it is true that the penalties are much too low, but 10 years for causing death by negligent driving is too high. Five ought to be the absolute maximum in that case.

Lord Bradshaw: I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. For a long time the courts have taken an unduly lenient view of those who leave people injured for life as a result of their negligent driving. There seems to be both a reluctance on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service to bring the most serious charges— and often to bring the lesser charge, which can be tried in the magistrates' court—and for the magistrates' court to take the driver's point of view rather than that of the person who has suffered injury.
	This is a very serious issue. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us that the Government will pick up the results of the consultation, which was debated in Westminster Hall, and that it is their intention to introduce into the Bill either the amendments proposed by the noble Earl or something similar. I cannot think of many cases where you can behave in such a negligent and dangerous way and be dealt with in such a lenient way, often in a magistrates' court. You may not be disqualified even though you have left someone grievously injured for the rest of their life.

Baroness Hanham: I hesitate to intervene because, as I have declared before, I am a magistrate and I deal with road traffic matters. It is inconceivable—I have never come across it—that the case of someone charged with careless driving as a result of which the victim was seriously, seriously injured would remain in the magistrates' court. It would almost certainly end up in the Crown Court.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness makes an important point when she refers to a case of such seriousness. The courts have ruled that the seriousness of injuries as a consequence of accidents may be taken into account when sentencing. Therefore, by definition, that places the judgments beyond the magistrates' court.
	I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that we share with him entirely the anxiety he has expressed and the public concern about the question of penalties for careless driving which leads to serious injury or fatalities. We intend to act.
	The noble Earl indicated, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, reinforced the point, that we are involved in a consultation paper. We indicated that there may be a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for the offence and invited comments. The consultation period has only just finished. We are looking at the results of the consultation and we intend to act.
	I can assure the noble Earl that the case he has put today is accepted by the Government and that we shall give serious consideration to this issue. We recognise that the public are greatly exercised about it. We intend to act and we will be acting shortly.

Lord Monson: It is good to hear that the Government intend to act on the question of causing death by negligent driving. However, the Minister said nothing about causing injury by dangerous driving. Is there any reason why the law should not be brought into line with Northern Ireland in this respect?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I was not talking about negligent driving—that is the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—I was talking about careless driving. That is the basis of the consultation paper and the framework within which we are considering these issues. But all factors will be taken into account and I can reassure the Committee that the Government are bent upon action.

Earl Attlee: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that he intends to increase the penalty for a road traffic offence depending upon whether or not the victim survives?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not want to be drawn too far, because I cannot pre-empt the consequences of the Government's consideration of the representations made. I am, however, giving the assurance that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, might expect; namely, that we are taking the issue with sufficient seriousness, taking all factors into account—and intend to act soon. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would recognise, we are concerned that careless driving which results in very serious injury or fatality needs to be taken more seriously than it has been in the past. That was the burden of the contribution made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to the debate, and the basis of his amendment. I cannot accept his amendment and want him to withdraw it, but I want the Committee to recognise that we intend to act on this matter.

The Earl of Dundee: I thank the Minister very much for his helpful responses. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Berkeley, as well as my noble friend Lady Hanham for theirs. As indicated, a justice gap has been acknowledged by the Government. They have already suggested that the maximum penalty for dangerous driving should be raised to five years, and their consultation paper is already in favour of the institution of a new offence of causing death by careless driving. Thus, as earlier outlined, the purpose here is to encourage the Government to use the Bill in order to act upon their own intentions. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that he will act accordingly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Breach of requirements relating to children and seat belts]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc.]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 23, line 27, leave out "six" and insert "three".

Earl Attlee: Clause 20, as I read it, introduces disqualification for the second offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. That is a serious offence and I can fully understand the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. However, there are some difficulties.
	First, a six-month ban is quite onerous: I suggest that a three-month ban would still have a salutary effect. Secondly, whether a vehicle is in a dangerous condition is very much a matter of judgment, and not of fact—such as whether a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit. I have never been prosecuted for any offence, not even a motoring offence, touch wood. But if I were prosecuted under Section 40, I would seek the best specialist legal advice. I would certainly not take it on the chin, because if convicted, I would already be halfway towards losing my licence. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield will deal with the position of someone who is an employed driver, who can be in a more difficult position than a private motorist. I will fully support him in that amendment.
	My final concern is that I will vigorously defend any prosecution for the offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. But what happens if, prior to the passing of the Bill, a motorist is convicted for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition? The court knows that giving him three points will only take him a quarter of the way, or an extra quarter, towards losing his licence—and therefore takes that into account when setting the fine. Then, after the Bill is passed, and the court is considering a second offence of the same kind— using a vehicle in a dangerous condition—the court will have to disqualify if it convicts. But the court considering the first offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition would not have been able to take into consideration the effect of the Bill when setting a fine. Therefore, the Bill will effectively increase the penalty awarded by the first court. I am not convinced that that is compliant with the ECHR.

Baroness Hanham: My Amendment No. 91 is linked with Amendment No. 90. As the noble Earl said, Clause 20 would make disqualification for using a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition obligatory and not discretionary if the driver has committed a similar offence in the previous three years. What it does not say is how dangerous a vehicle has to be. Before I go on to the main point of the amendment, which is the employee, I would point out that a vehicle in a dangerous condition could be anything from having one tyre that does not fulfil the requirements to a vehicle that is a complete write-off in terms of tyres, engines, lights, ignition and indicators.
	Therefore, the first flaw with this clause is the fact that the description of the vehicle is omitted. It is pretty harsh that, if three years previously one got a fine for a bald tyre or not having an indicator or back light, one should automatically be disqualified for having one more faulty tyre or indicator. The definition of "vehicle in a dangerous condition" needs to be sorted out.
	The main burden of my amendment is to highlight a difficulty with the legislation. As the clause stands, a good driver who is not the owner of the vehicle but merely an employee would automatically lose his livelihood when there may be no culpability on his part. The courts should decide on the basis of the evidence before them and not be ordered by Parliament to take a certain view on disqualification. The amendment would therefore exempt any offender who was employee driving a vehicle that was not his from the insistence that a second offender receives an obligatory ban.
	There are many occasions when drivers take vehicles out—builders or people transporting goods from one place to another. They simply collect the vehicle in the depot and take it on. Only the most assiduous employee would crawl over the vehicle first to make sure that it was in excellent condition. There are certain circumstances in which, if one is driving somebody else's vehicle in the course of employment, one understands and knows that there is something wrong with it. There are many vehicle defects, however, that are weighty enough to make the vehicle dangerous but which the driver might not know anything about, especially if it is not his vehicle. For example, a badly corroded chassis would not be immediately evident to the driver. If it was a commercial vehicle with a tipping facility on the back one would not necessarily know whether that mechanism was in a dangerous condition. Why should the employee know whether the vehicle is in a dangerous condition?
	Why do the Government want to include a provision in the Bill that could, in certain circumstances, be an attack on an innocent working man working for an employer who was not following the maintenance of his vehicles properly? The worker could find that he lost not only his licence but his livelihood. If his only trade is as a driver, he could be taken off the road by the disqualification and consequently would not be able to work. We should allow the courts to look at the evidence before them. If there was a fault that experts could say would not necessarily be apparent to the driver of the vehicle, why should the driver, who is not the owner, receive an immediate ban?
	There are many other examples within road driving legislation where there is a differential between the owner of a vehicle and the driver. I recommend that we ensure that that differential remains true of this clause as well.

Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may add a word or two to what has just been said by the noble Baroness. We are talking about vehicles in a dangerous condition, not necessarily vehicles in a defective condition.
	If you have attended a vehicle inspection as I have and seen vehicles stopped, you would be horrified by the standards of some vehicles. I remember one instance of a lorry carrying coal from Southampton to Glasgow, which was stopped at Abingdon. I was invited by the vehicle inspector to bend down and look at the tyres. He told me not to touch them, but, by that time, I had done so. The metal of the tyres was exposed all the way around. The tread had gone completely. He said that if he were to take the case to the local magistrates' court, the driver would be fined £200. He said that that was less than the cost of one replacement tyre. He said, "The one thing I can do which will effectively punish him is to stop the lorry here, and he will have to manually shovel all the coal out of the lorry into another lorry".
	I cannot believe that that driver, be he an employee or the employer, would be ignorant of the fact that the lorry was not in roadworthy condition. Before any driver, be he working for a local builder or a local haulage firm, takes a vehicle on the road, he should make simple checks of the tyres, the lights, the windscreen washers and the like—the sort of things that we are encouraged to do. He should do so because he is a professional driver. The Vehicle Inspectorate is unlikely to prosecute somebody for having a dangerous vehicle because one light is out or one windscreen wiper is not working, but if a person has really taken a dangerous vehicle on to our motorways, he is causing lots of people to suffer risk of serious injury. The Government are right to think fairly seriously about this, but I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Earl Attlee: It is surprisingly easy to pick up a conviction for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. It is not perhaps as easy as my noble friend on the Front Bench suggested, where just a defective indicator is concerned, but a loose filler cap on the diesel tank, for instance, is a very serious matter. When the vehicle goes round a corner, the fuel can spill out. This is extremely dangerous for cyclists. Therefore, the authorities need to prosecute. No specific offence exists. All that one can do is prosecute the driver for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. That is an example of how easy it is to pick up a prosecution.
	If we make the result of being prosecuted for a loose filler cap too devastating, the authorities might not prosecute at all, because they will jeopardise the driver's licence, but they still want to prosecute him for something. The provision could have an unfortunate effect. We need to think very carefully about this, but I too would be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say.

Viscount Simon: I shall be very brief. All vehicle examiners—be they police officers, from the Vehicle Inspectorate or whoever—are very highly trained. They will not put a vehicle off the road with a PG9 prohibition notice unless it is in a dangerous condition. Anyone who is driving a vehicle that is found to be in a dangerous condition has his own self to answer for.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have had my frustrations with the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on occasions today, but his last one frustrated me the most. He produced an absolutely perfect response to the movers of the amendment, but ended by saying,
	"but I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say".
	I would have been content for him to say that the Minister did not need to say anything else because he had said it. That would have foreshortened the debate and we would have finished this part of the Bill a little earlier.
	I recognise that the Government are required to comment on the amendments and the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about how easy it is to be prosecuted for being in charge of a dangerous vehicle.
	Let me make it clear. The vehicle must be dangerous, so a bald tyre does not come within the frame. I hear what the noble Earl says on a facet that looks quite simple about the filler cap not fitting. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. You would have to be a pretty careless driver not to know that your filler cap does not fit.

Earl Attlee: Inspection will not necessarily reveal that the cap is defective.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I bow to the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, who has no doubt dealt with more ill-fitting filler caps than I have.
	Even so, on the more general issues, we are talking about vehicles that are in a dangerous condition. That is tremendously important as the issue relates also to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in Amendment No. 91. Let us remember that we are talking about a second offence. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that a second offence brings in more condign punishment after the first offence has been committed. Legislation is like that. If the driver does not know that the legislation governing the conditions under which he does his work and how he conducts a truck or lorry on the road has changed, he is not fit to be the driver. It is his professional responsibility.
	It will not do to say that in some malign or unfair way the Government have now upped the sentences on a poor individual. He is somebody who has committed an offence on two separate occasions and we intend to ensure that trucks are safe on the road. To do that, the driver must take responsibility.
	In response to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, it need not be the driver who is charged with the offence. The offences are the use, causing or permitting another person to use a motor vehicle. In other words, it might be the employer who is negligent and the charge might be brought against him. It might even be the filler cap man. It might be that the driver could not possibly have spotted that the filler cap did not fit. The owner of the vehicle might be his employer, and in those circumstances, the prosecuting authorities will deal with the person responsible for the dangerous condition of the vehicle.
	That is my answer to the noble Baroness, who tugged at my heart strings when she suggested that a new Labour government might wish to victimise a working man in the course of his duty. Of course we would not want to victimise any working man or woman engaged in any form of professional activity. I want to bring it to the attention of the noble Baroness that we would want to identify who was responsible for the offence of bringing a dangerous vehicle on to the road. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, expressed much more effectively than I could ever do, such an offence is a danger to the public and we need to deal with the issue.

Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for his robust reply. He said that a decision would be made on who was responsible for the vehicle, but that is not what the Bill says. I refers to
	"using vehicle in dangerous condition".
	It seems to me there is a possibility that the Minister is saying that if the owner is to be prosecuted, he must have permitted a vehicle which is in a dangerous condition to be used, whereas if the driver is to be prosecuted, he might be charged with using a vehicle which is in a dangerous condition.
	I recognise that my amendment is not correct as it stands but neither do I think that the legislation is correct as it stands as regards penalties being apportioned as between the owner and the driver. On that basis we may need to return to the matter again to obtain clarity on it. Once you move the penalty from being that of a discretionary disqualification—which leaves the matter of whether the user or the permitter is at fault in the hands of the court—you take the matter out of the hands of the court and make it an absolute offence for which there must be absolutely a disqualification. Once you do that and thereby put people's livelihoods in jeopardy, you must be clear what the new section is saying.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall not dissuade the noble Baroness from undertaking her researches on where the law stands on this matter. I have no doubt that that is of benefit to the whole Committee. However, I sought to emphasise that existing legislation provides for the fact that if the driver can demonstrate that he drove the vehicle on the basis of assurances from the employer that it was a safe vehicle, but it proved not to be, the driver would not be prosecuted; rather the owner of the vehicle would be prosecuted. However, no doubt we shall return to these issues.

Earl Attlee: We have concluded that we need to take another look at the drafting of Section 40A of the 1988 Act. Unfortunately, Section 40A is missing from my copy of that Act because I have the original draft of the measure. I am anxious that the new provision may deter a prosecution if the authorities know that the driver already has one conviction as they might not want to ban him from driving. However, at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.